« Nuclear Reaction blog buttons | Main | Stop French nuclear waste from being dumped in Russia »

Nuclear News: Nuclear incident exposes 217 workers at Canadian Reactor

Share  
 
   

Nuclear: Mickey Mouse energy solutionToday's big stories from the nuclear industry:

Nuclear incident exposes 217 workers at Bruce Power
‘The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission says that as many as 217 workers may have been exposed to radioactivity at the Bruce nuclear power station on the shores of Lake Huron while refurbishing a reactor in late November. It is believed to be one of the largest mass exposures to radiation at a Canadian nuclear site. The company operating the station, Bruce Power, says that according to its estimates none of the workers received doses exceeding regulatory limits, although there are concerns that the amounts may have come close to the maximum safe exposures. The CNSC, Canada's nuclear safety watchdog, issued the estimate of the number of people that might have been affected in a regulatory filing today in Ottawa. The incident will be among those discussed by the regulator at a meeting of its board on Thursday.’

Pangasinan board approves construction of nuke plants
‘LINGAYEN, Pangasinan , Philippines - Provincial board members voted 7-1-2 during their plenary session Monday afternoon to adopt a resolution on the construction of nuclear power plants from South Korea along the province’s coastline. Sixth district board member Alfonso Bince Jr., who was designated chairman of the ad hoc committee created to study the resolution, told The STAR yesterday that they ‘thoroughly discussed’ the draft resolution proposed by fifth district Rep. Mark Cojuangco, as he belied reports that they fast-tracked its approval. The resolution ‘expressed the sense’ of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan ‘to invite the national government to locate, under certain conditions, the KEDO nuclear plant assets or other equally modern nuclear power plants within the boundaries of the province, most specifically along the coastline areas.’’

Raj Thackeray equates Jaitapur nuke project with SRK
‘Mumbai: Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) president Raj Thackeray on Tuesday compared the dispute over Jaitapur nuclear power project in Ratnagiri with actor Shah Rukh Khan. According to him, the government cannot forcibly come up with the project as they did while releasing the Khan starrer My Name is Khan. ‘The Jaitapur project is not Shah Rukh Khan, and the government cannot complete it by applying force against the poor farmers,’ said Thackeray. He was speaking to a delegation of farmers at Ratnagiri during his Konkan tour. ‘I do not oppose any power project. But my party will certainly oppose this project if the government forces the farmers to surrender their land. The dispute is not over the compensation; the government should clarify its stand on the dangerous situation the residents will have to face after the project is completed,’ he said.’

Beyond Nuclear Denounces President Obama’s Decision to Transfer Financial and Safety Risks of New Reactors to US Taxpayers
‘TAKOMA PARK, MD - February 16 - Beyond Nuclear today denounced President Obama’s granting of a conditional loan guarantee to Southern Nuclear Operating Company for the construction of new atomic reactors at its Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant site in Waynesboro, Georgia. Two new Westinghouse-Toshiba Advanced Passive (AP) 1000 reactors are proposed at Plant Vogtle. President Obama’s award comes despite an announcement by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in October of a major safety flaw with the AP1000 design. An NRC media release dated October 15, 2009 documents that the AP1000 shield building, as currently designed, is vulnerable to severe weather such as tornadoes and hurricanes, and natural disasters like earthquakes. This raises the concern that the design is also vulnerable to terrorist attacks such as intentionally crashing airliners. Thus, the shield building’s intended protection of the reactor’s primary radioactivity containment is questionable, as is its ability to provide radiation shielding during normal operations as well as to support a large emergency cooling water supply tank.’

Decommissioning underway in Lithuania
‘The closure of the last functioning reactor at Lithuania's Ignalina nuclear power plant on 31 December 2009 has laid focus on the daunting decommissioning process currently underway with the help of several international agencies. Funding for this work is chiefly being made available by an Ignalina International Decommissioning Support Fund (IIDSF), which is managed by the European Bank for Reconstruction & Development (EBRD). About 95% of the required decommissioning funds have been provided by the international community, and the spending is being administered by a Central Project Management Agency (CPMA) and the EBRD. The other 5% comes from Lithuanian state funds through the state's own energy agency. After an open tender, a group of companies led by France's Areva TA is developing the structure of a near-surface repository for redundant materials and waste. This work has been called Project B25, and is supposed to be completed in 2017, costing â‚10 million ($13.7 million) and being financed by the IIDSF. The repository contains a variety of facilities - the first should start operating in 2015. The waste storage area will be filled until approximately 2030 when the power plant is expected to be completely dismantled. This will then be sealed and coated with several corrosion resistant layers to protect the surrounding environment from contamination. Most of the work carried out by remaining power plant personnel.’

Fukushima willing to OK pluthermal
‘FUKUSHIMA (Kyodo) Fukushima Gov. Yuhei Sato said Tuesday he is willing to accept a pluthermal power-generation project by Tokyo Electric Power Co. at a plant in his prefecture if certain conditions are met. Sato said the global trend is toward nuclear power and safety measures have improved. But for the plan to go ahead, Sato said the No. 3 reactor at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant should be protected against both earthquakes and aging, while adding that the safety of plutonium-uranium mixed oxide fuel, which has been stored at the plant since 1999, should be confirmed. Tepco is expected to start loading MOX fuel as early as June when it conducts a regular inspection at the plant and could begin pluthermal power generation in September.’

EDF warned of ‘massive’ reactor bill
‘EDF could face ‘massive’ new investment to extend the life of its French nuclear reactors beyond 40 years, the country’s safety authority has warned. Extending the life of its French reactors is crucial to EDF, which is hoping to secure 60-year life-cycles for its plants - a term that is already common in the US. The move comes as the French state-owned utility faces the prospect of greater competition in its home market and struggles to cope with record debt. André-Claude Lacoste, president of the French nuclear safety authority, said on Tuesday that the watchdog was ‘beginning to treat’ the question of the conditions EDF would have to meet to extend the life of its reactors beyond 40 years. ‘To go beyond that without doubt would require massive investment,’ he warned. The warning came as the regulator revealed that EDF has already been forced to commit hundreds of millions of euros to replacing the ageing steam generators on 34 of its 58 reactors.’

The US, Iran, and the Nuclear Dilemma: A Conversation with Jonathan Schell
‘The recent US missile defense push in the Persian Gulf to counter the perceived nuclear threat from Iran raises sensitive questions about our policies and priorities. I caught up with Jonathan Schell, one of the nation's leading advocates of a nuclear-free world, to talk about the need for a radical policy change, the nuclear energy controversy, and more.

LP: What is the 'real' nuclear relationship between the US and Iran?

JS: The first thing to remember is that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. But obviously, the issue is whether Iran is trying to get nuclear weapons-whether their program is a precursor to weapons or designed for peaceful purposes. In the end, the difference isn't as important as it might at first seem -- the fact is that by obtaining the capacity to enrich uranium, they're 8 out of 10 steps towards the bomb.’