There is great concern among the nations that have nuclear weapons about other nations obtaining them. There are international treaties that exist for the purpose of insuring that signatory nations do nothing that could result in the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The United States has bilateral treaties for civil use of nuclear power which include a clause about the enrichment of uranium into a concentrated form that would be suitable for use in a nuclear warhead. This issue has been in the news lately because of the fear that Iran may develop nuclear weapons.

        The U.S. and the Middle Eastern nation of Jordan have been talking about nuclear cooperation for years. These discussion became especially relevant in 2011 when the Egyptian revolution led to the repeated destruction of the Sinai natural gas pipeline which had been Jordan’s most consistent source of energy. In 2012, energy disruptions cost Jordan a twenty percent budget deficit. Since then, Jordan has been very interested in nuclear power. They would like to see the construction of two one gigawatt nuclear power plants. They have express the intent to be getting at least thirty percent of their electricity from nuclear reactors by 2030.

        Jordan insists that it has the right to enrich uranium but the U.S. wants them to forego that right in return for U.S. cooperation in the Jordanian nuclear program. Jordan has no oil but they do have deposits of uranium that may contain as much as thirty five thousand tons. This could provide Jordan with all the electricity that it needs for a hundred years. Jordan also has plans to mine and sell uranium on the world market.

       One of the planned reactor sites is in the Jordan River Valley which contains a major earthquake fault line. Israel raised concerns about this site with Jordanian officials in a meeting in 2009. It is ironic that the Jordanians at the meeting pointed out that Japan has a lot of earthquakes but that it has been able to build and safely operate fifty nuclear reactors. Two year later, the Fukushima disaster called into question the wisdom of locating nuclear reactors near fault lines.

       One of Jordan’s propose nuclear plant sites is in the tribal lands of the Bani Sakr, Jordan’s largest tribe. A member of the Jordanian Parliament is from that tribe and a staunch opponent of nuclear power. One of the questions that she raises has to do with the availability of huge amounts of cooling water for the propose nuclear plant. Jordan has serious problems with accessing sufficient water. She also questioned whether or not Jordan has enough nuclear technicians to safely operate such a plant. The cost of the plant is another issue of contention with the ten billion dollar estimated cost almost equal to the entire annual budget of Jordan.

       Supporters of Jordanian nuclear power dismiss concerns over water. They say that they will use waste water from a nearby waste treatment plant for one site. Another proposed site could get water from the Red Sea after it had been pumped to the site and desalinated. A research reactor is being built by a Korean consortium and Jordanian university programs will provide nuclear technicians. With respect to finances, Russia, the country that is going to build the Jordanian reactors, will provide funds for a forty nine point nine percent share.

       The geopolitical situation in Jordan will play a role in their ultimate decision of whether or not to actually build the proposed nuclear reactors. In spite of their desperate need for power, Jordan has serious financial problems. Refugees from the conflict in Syria are flooding into Jordan. In addition, there is a concern that if the Syrian conflict spills over into Jordan, there could be serious dangers of intentional or accidental destruction of nuclear power plants endangering the Jordanian people. Jordan should invest in solar power and forget about nuclear power.

Artist’s concept of Jordanian research reactor:

 

On 1/27/2015, TEPCO announced they measured high density of Strontium-90 from groundwater in the seaside of Reactor 2. fukushima-diary.com

Only ‘some’ of Fukushima melted fuel is now solid. enenews.com

The chief of Russia’s armed forces said yesterday a strong nuclear arsenal will ensure military superiority over the West as Russia seeks to fulfill a multi-billion dollar plan to modernize its forces by 2020. dhakatriibune.com

The delays and cost overruns are piling up for a new plant in Georgia that was supposed to prove nuclear energy can be built affordably. hosted.ap.org

         I have blogged many times about the problems of cleaning up nuclear contamination. The federal government and the nuclear industry are always telling us that nuclear power reactors will be safe, cheap  and low carbon sources of energy. But they are not so vocal about all the contaminated sites that are still being cleaned up after decades of work such as the Hanford Nuclear Reservation.

       The Shallow Land Disposal Area is in Parks Township, about twenty miles north of Pittsburgh. Large amounts of radioactive waste were buried at the SLDA decades ago by Nuclear Materials & Equipment Corporation, a local company that worked on nuclear projects for the federal government and other organizations. SLDA was eventually purchased by Babcock & Wilcox, an energy products and services company.

      The Army Corp of Engineers has spent years planning for the cleanup of SLDA. In 2011, the Corp began excavating one of the ten known trenches that contained nuclear waste. After only a few weeks of digging, the excavations were stopped. The Corp stated that the a contractor had violated safety protocols. In addition, it was reported that a “unexpectedly large amount of complex materials” were discovered during excavations. When asked what the materials were, the Corp would not comment. Shortly thereafter, the Corp classified some of the information about the SLDA based on a specific security rule that deals with “special nuclear material.” Plutonium and enriched uranium suitable for use in making nuclear weapons are covered by this security rule.

       Earlier this month, the Corp presented the revised cleanup plan for the SLDA. They said that what was discovered during the 2011 excavations revealed “an unanticipated and immediate need for fundamental changes to site operations.” Originally, the cost of cleanup was estimated to be around forty four million dollars. Purchase of additional safety equipment, adding more personnel and changing procedures have now raised the estimated cost of cleanup to four hundred and twelve million dollars, roughly ten times the original estimate.

        One of the reasons for the increased cost estimate was “to prevent a nuclear criticality.” If enough fissionable materials such as plutonium and/or enriched uranium are brought together, they could produce a nuclear chain reaction that would be catastrophic with possible release of a great deal of radiation.

        The Corp also reported that they were not sure about what else they might find at the SLDA. There could be more radioactive materials that have not been discovered yet. Both critics of the cleanup and contractors have reviewed historical documents and concluded that there is evidence of burial sites other than the known ten trenches. The revised plan for the site cleanup calls for excavations to begin in 2017 and continue for up to ten years.

        There are many other sites in the U.S. where nuclear waste has been buried over the decades since the 1950s. A great deal of this work was done for the Department of Defense and there was little concern about environmental contamination. In addition, there was also very poor record keeping. Soon or later, these sites will have to be cleaned up or radioactive materials will keep escaping into the ecosystem and posing a threat to public health.

Shallow Land Disposal Area:

While you may have heard information about Fukushima in the news, there are some stories the mainstream media isn’t covering. wakingtimes.com

Russian study says that Fukushima released 100 quadrillion Becquerels of cesium into the atmosphere in one day which is about equal to the Chernobyl disaster’s total release. enenews.com

About 30 members of the Fiji Nuclear Veterans Association will receive payment for medical assistance today in recognition of the various ailments they suffered for the exposure to nuclear radiation during nuclear tests. fijitimes.com

A bill that would levy tough new sanctions on Iran if it fails to sign an agreement to curb its nuclear program cleared a Senate committee on Thursday. foxbusiness.com

 

 

         India has a industrial accident liability law passed after the Bhopal industrial disaster in 1984. A Union Carbide plant released thirty two tons of toxic gases that killed about four thousand people and injured at least six thousand more. This was one of the worst industrial disasters in history. One of the repercussions of the disaster was the creation of a new liability law.

        The law says that companies that the manufacturer of equipment involved in a serious industrial accident can be sued. This liability law has kept India from being able to import nuclear components and fuel from most nuclear nations. India has been working on an insurance pool that would cover nuclear accidents and protect equipment suppliers. Russia recently said that they were in discussion with India to build twenty power reactors and that the liability law did not bother them.

        India has a huge population and an insatiable demand for electricity. Currently sixty percent of the electricity in India is generated by burning coal. This creates severe air pollution and releases enormous amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere which is contributing to global climate change. Nuclear power accounts for just three percent of electrical generation in India at present. India would like to generate about twenty five percent from nuclear power plants by 2050.

        The U.S. and India signed a civilian nuclear arrangement in 2008 but U.S. businesses were concerned about liability and have not signed up to supply India with reactors. Another impediment to U.S. companies doing nuclear deals with India was the insistence by the U.S. that any nuclear tech or fuel that was exported to India would have to be tracked to insure that they were not diverted to India’s military nuclear program. India has never signed the international nuclear non-proliferation treaties.

       U.S. President Obama just ended a visit with Prime Minister Modi in India. In the new civil nuclear technology sharing agreement just signed during Obama’s visit to India, the U.S. dropped the tracking requirement. U.S. companies should be attracted by the estimated one hundred and eighty five billion dollars worth of new nuclear power reactors that will be facilitated by the new arrangement. However, they will conduct their own risk assessments to determine whether or not the new Indian insurance pool will be sufficient to protect them in case of a nuclear disaster.

       I recently posted about the desire of nuclear equipment and nuclear fuel manufacturers to sell to the developing world. In that article, I spoke about Vietnam. One big concern that I have with such deals is a fear that corruption in the construction, operation and regulation of nuclear power plants could pose a grave threat to the environment and public health. Fortunately India is rated as being much less corrupt than Vietnam. Out of one hundred and seventy countries, India has a ranking of eighty four which means that more than half of the countries are rated as being more corrupt than India. On the other hand, nuclear exporters such as the U.S., Japan, Canada, France and Russia are considered to be among the thirty least corrupt countries. In view of the fact that there are serious examples of corruption in the nuclear industry even in these countries, it is even more likely that there will be serious corruption in India with respect to the construction and operation of nuclear power plants. India should explore other sources of energy such as solar, wind and hydro.

Indian nuclear power plant:

A Japanese government think tank, the Institute of Energy Economics Japan, said a 25 percent target for nuclear power would be the most advantageous from an economical point of view, compared to zero percent, 15 percent and 30 percent hypothetical scenarios that were studied.  nuclearstreet.com

Global consequences from Fukushima-like nuclear disaster will involve many nations. enenews.com

Germany’s highest constitutional court will make a decision this year on claims by Vattenfall, RWE and E.ON that the government’s accelerated schedule or a nuclear power phase out violates their property rights, which has caused them billions of dollars in damages, a spokesman for the court said Tuesday. nuclearstreet.com

New videos released by the Department of Justice Wednesday show a former American nuclear physicist covertly meeting with a man who he believed to be a Venezuelan intelligence officer in order to sell his expertise, as well as classified information, to the South American nation. mycentraloregon.com

 

 

         I have blogged about the dangers of flooding at nuclear power plants before. Nuclear power plants require huge quantities of water to cool the reactors. Therefore, nuclear power plants must be located near rivers, lakes or oceans. With the increased dangers of major storms caused by global climate change, this means that nuclear power plants will become more vulnerable to flooding. It was the flooding at Fukushima that cause the melt-down of three nuclear reactors. Of the one hundred operating nuclear power reactors in the U.S., there are at least twenty five power plants that are in danger of serious flooding.

       Boone Dam is on the South Fork Holston River in Tennessee. The hydroelectric and flood control dam is owned and operate by the Tennessee Valley Authority. The dam is a concrete gravity-type dam. It is one hundred sixty feet high and one thousand five hundred and thirty two feet long. It has a maximum discharge rate of one hundred thirty seven thousand cubic feet per second. The V-shaped reservoir behind the dam is called Boone Lake and it covers about forty five hundred acres.

       In October of 2014, a sink hole was found at the bottom of the dam and six days later, water was found seeping under the dam near the site of the sink hole. Upon finding this seepage, the operators of the dam began lowering the water level earlier in the year than usual. The operators of the dam are working to discover exactly why and how the water is seeping under the dam.

       What makes the leak under Boone Dam especially troubling is that it is upstream from three TVA nuclear power plants. If that dam were to break, the ensuing flood could threaten seven nuclear reactors. Aside from any existing structural weaknesses, a major upstream flood caused by storms could possibly weaken the dam.

        A magnitude five point nine earthquake occurred in Virginia, right across the border from the dam, in 2011. Recent research into earthquake impact has revealed that the shaking of the earth caused by a quake can travel much further than was originally thought. This means that if there is another quake in Virginia, it could possibly weaken or rupture the Boone Dam.

       The situation with the Boone Dam highlights a major issue with nuclear power plants compared to other low-carbon energy sources such as wind and solar. If a wind farm or a solar power station were flooded, it would cut off the power generated by these sources but that would be the extent of the damage. On the other hand, if a nuclear power plant is flooded, the result may be a catastrophe such as the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster. Japan is still dealing with the aftermath of the accident four years later. People had to be permanently evacuated from nearby towns. Huge amounts of radiation were released into the atmosphere and are still being released into the Pacific Ocean.

      With extreme weather and flooding increasing worldwide and one fifth of the U.S. nuclear power reactors in danger of flooding, the NRC must increase pressure on nuclear power plant owners to harden their power plants against possible floods.

Boone Dam: