Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

According to Reuters 23-10-2014 (below), the US, Canada, and Russia oppose a proposal by Switzerland, which would “put pressure on countries to upgrade existing nuclear plants and reach the safety requirements of new-generation reactors.”

The US has 100 nuclear reactors, most very old. Although we have made fun of the small holes drilled in the external containment of a Swiss nuclear reactor to put a fire extinguisher, and have serious concerns about earthquake-prone and aging Swiss nuclear reactors, the US nuclear industry’s idea of safety appears to be a hole in the reactor pressure vessel head the size of a football:
Davis Besse football size hole
“In March 2002, plant staff discovered that the borated water that serves as the reactor coolant had leaked from cracked control rod drive mechanisms directly above the reactor and eaten through more than six inches (150 mm) of the carbon steel reactor pressure vessel head over an area roughly the size of a football (see photo)“. This “left only 3⁄8 inch (9.5 mm) of stainless steel cladding holding back the high-pressure (~2500 psi, 17 MPa) reactor coolant. A breach most likely would have resulted in a mass loss-of-coolant accident, in which reactor coolant would have jetted into the reactor’s containment building and resulted in emergency safety procedures to protect from core damage or meltdown. Because of the location of the reactor head damage, such a jet of reactor coolant might have damaged adjacent control rod drive mechanisms, hampering or preventing reactor shut-down.” After finding the hole, the Davis-Besse owner (First Energy of Akron) bought a used, yes USED, replacement head, which had cracks and problems! Talk about doing it on the cheap! (see more at the bottom). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis–Besse_Nuclear_Power_Station

“US, Europeans row over post-Fukushima nuclear safety step
Posted:Thu, 23 Oct 2014 15:12:53 GMT
VIENNA (Reuters) – The United States is lobbying against an amendment to an international nuclear safety pact proposed by Switzerland, which Berne argues could help prevent Fukushima-style disasters but which may also increase industry costs, diplomats said.” http://feeds.reuters.com/~r/reuters/environment/~3/cB3xwbEd4wQ/story01.htm

This is what the US, Canada, and Russia oppose, and Switzerland Proposes. It is the minimal of common sense and actually rather weak: “Switzerland’s Proposed Amendment to the CNS
Nuclear power plants shall be designed and constructed with the objectives of preventing accidents and, should an accident occur, mitigating its effects and avoiding releases of radionuclides causing long-term off-site contamination. In order to identify and implement appropriate safety improvements, these objectives shall also be applied at existing plants”. http://www.ensi.ch/en/2014/04/08/switzerland-achieves-majority-in-favour-of-improving-the-convention-on-nuclear-safety/

If there is one thing, which almost everyone knows, it is that the non-rural Swiss are largely bankers (and accountants). So, if Switzerland’s largest bank, UBS, says that nuclear is not the way to go, then nuclear is dead, short of bloated subsidies given to it by corrupt nuclear states:
“Big power out, solar in: UBS urges investors to join renewables revolution: World’s largest private bank predicts large-scale power stations will soon make way for electric cars and new solar technologies“, by John Vidal, Wednesday 27 August 2014 http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/aug/27/ubs-investors-renewables-revolution

And, it is actually the banks, in the end, who must float loans for the bloated nuclear bureaucracies – actually it seems fair to call the US a nuclear kleptocracy, for the nuclear industry is robbing the taxpayers.

ROSATOM is Russian government owned and produces almost half of its electricity in the country’s European part. It is 2nd in uranium reserves; 5th in uranium mining; 4th in nuclear electricity generation, and provides at least 40% of the world uranium enrichment services and holds 17% of the world nuclear fuel market. p. 13 “CURRENT NUCLEAR POWER ISSUES IN RUSSIA“, by Valerii Korobeinikov , State Scientific Center , Institute of Physics and Power Engineering , Technical Meeting on the Country Nuclear Power Profiles , 18 to 21 March 2013 , Vienna https://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloadable/Meetings/2013/2013-03-18-03-21-TM-NPE/16.korobeinikov.pdf Russia has a fleet of nuclear icebreakers and submarines, as well.

Canada is the second largest producer of uranium, needed to run the nuclear reactors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_production Canadian registered mining companies are also active around the world (e.g. Russian state owned, Canadian registered Uranium One, which has US Uranium mines).

Russia and the US are the top two nuclear weapons states. Unfortunately, one can not get around the relationship between nuclear weapons and nuclear power. Nuclear weapons aren’t just left, as is, but require new plutonium, for instance, made in nuclear reactors, and so they constantly create more radioactive pollution, as well. Nuclear subs also make constant and long-term waste. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons

While it is clear that Rosatom is big business for the Russian state; mining is THE business of Canada, why isn’t the US concerned with nuclear safety?

spoils system

Let’s start with the Chicago Nuclearcrat in Chief:

“Nuclear Energy Company Backs Obama’s Bid
by Communications on February 5, 2008
Democrat Barack Obama has come under fire for his ties to Exelon Corp, the largest operator of nuclear reactors in the United States and one of his most generous financial backers. When Exelon failed to disclose radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants, Obama tried to push through a bill in the Senate last year that required such plants to notify state and local authorities of such cases, the New York Times reported last week. According to the Times, the final proposal was a watered-down version of the original legislation that “played into the hands of the nuclear power industry.” Obama has collected at least $222,000 from Exelon employees for his presidential campaign, making the company his eighth largest contributor last year. The Illinois senator received 10 times more than Republican John McCain, who brought in the second largest haul from Exelon. Ninety percent of the company’s total $249,000 in contributions went to Democrats, but the only other Democrat to get money from Exelon was Bill Richardson, who collected $2,250. Five Republican candidates got money from the nuclear reactor operator.” (Center for Responsive Politics: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/02/nuclear-energy-company-backs-o/; Note that donations for presidency, congress, etc, are not direct but from PACs, members, employees, owners or immediate families.]

“Patronage is therefore a recognized power of the executive branch. In most countries the executive has the right to make many appointments, some of which may be lucrative (see also sinecures). In some democracies, high-level appointments are reviewed or approved by the legislature (as in the advice and consent of the United States Senate); in other countries, such as those using the Westminster system, this is not the case. Other types of political patronage may violate the laws or ethics codes, such as when political leaders engage in nepotism (hiring family members) and cronyism such as fraudulently awarding non-competitive government contracts to friends or relatives or pressuring the public service to hire an unqualified family member or friend.” (Emphasis our own). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronage

Yeah, so what about the legislative branch? Well, the nuclear industry apparently has them in their pockets too with campaign contributions.

If you look, for instance, at the “Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works: Clean Air and Nuclear Safety” https://www.govtrack.us/congress/committees/SSEV/10, 9 out of 13 accepted money from the nuclear industry in a very short window of time: http://maplight.org/us-congress/interest/E1300 It’s not clear how they determined this for if you look at donations from companies with nuclear interests (e.g. owners of nuclear reactors) the numbers are much larger. It may be simply that the donations have sped up as elections loom. This 9 out of 13 is 69% and is actually pretty close to the 65% of all 100 Senators who are listed as having received contributions from the nuclear industry. Even one vehement opponent of nuclear is listed as having taken money from them, so it appears not always a guarantee. Only about 10% of the much larger House (435 members) are listed as taking money from nuclear interests.

What we find particularly offensive are the large nuclear donations to the Chair of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rep. Fred Upton [R-MI6] and to the Chair of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Sen. Mary Landrieu [D-LA], as well as to Ranking Member, Sen. Lisa Murkowski [R-AK]. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/committees/SSEG https://www.govtrack.us/congress/committees/HSIF Landrieu also serves on the “Senate Committee on Appropriations: Energy and Water Development“, as does Murkowski https://www.govtrack.us/congress/committees/SSAP/22

We still haven’t figured out what Entergy wants from “endangered” Arkansas Senator Pryor, unless it is for him to protect their interests in the elderly Arkansas 1 Nuclear Reactors (1974).

Pryor has the following Committee Assignments: Appropriations, Commerce, Science and Transportation, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Rules and Administration, Small Business and Entrepreneurship. For this campaign cycle (2014) those affiliated with Entergy Corp have given him a total of $60,900 of which individual $37,400; PAC $23,500; Top 5 Contributors, 2009 – 2014, Campaign Cmte and Leadership PAC, included Entergy Corp – Total: $67,400 Indivs: $37,400 PACS: $30,000 [Note that: The organizations do not donate but it comes from PACs, members, employees, owners or immediate families and includes subsidiaries and affiliates. See Center for Responsive politics: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?type=C&cid=n00013823&newMem=N&cycle=2014) Entergy has about 11 reactors which it owns and operates-manages in the USA, including the two at Arkansas One Nuclear Power Station.

Everyone now knows where they can start looking for Pryor if he loses – with another formerly endangered and now former Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln who was appointed to the board of Entergy Corporation in January 2011, the same month that she left the US Senate. Over her Senate career, she received $52, 699 from Entergy related donors. http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00008092&type=I
Blanche joined the “Nuclear Matters Leadership Council” this year. She was a Member of the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Everyone can be looking for Mary Landrieu at Entergy’s New Orleans office, if she loses!

For “nuclear” Fred Upton, House Energy Chair, the contributions related to nuclear for the 2014 cycle, only, add up to over $100,000 (Exelon, Southern, Edison Electric Institute). Lifetime (1989-2014) contributions from those related to the huge and hugely notorious “Energy Solutions” is $64,700. (Note, as above, donations are indirect-come from PACs, etc. See Center for Responsive politics: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00004133)

For “nuclear” Mary Landrieu, Senate Energy Chair, the nuclear number for this cycle is 84,620$ (NRG, Deloitte, Dominion) and over a career, from Entergy, 105,748 dollars. [Note: The organizations do not donate but it comes from PACs, members, employees, owners or immediate families and includes subsidiaries and affiliates. See Center for Responsive politics: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?type=C&cid=N00005395&newMem=N&cycle=2014)

Perhaps most shocking of all are Lisa Murkowski’s nuclear-related donations. She may be next in line for Senate Energy Chair, if nuclear Mary loses. Donations include the PG&E ($44,750) who is owner of the dangerous Diablo Canyon Nuclear Reactors, Nuclear Energy Institute (23,500 $), Exelon ($23,500), Southern ($33,500), Dominion ($24,000), Edison Electric Institute (24,000), NRG Energy, 16,000, Duke Energy 19,500$ (totaling $208,750). There are also those involved in enrichment, nuclear weapons, nuclear research labs, cleanup etc.: Honeywell ($19,000), Fluor ($14,500), Bechtel (13,500$), Raytheon ($33,000) (totalling $80,000) leading to a grand nuclear total of at least $ 288,750 for this 2014 cycle only Campaign Cmte & Leadership PAC Combined and we may have missed some nuclear related donors. [Note that: The organizations do not donate but it comes from PACs, members, employees, owners or immediate families and includes subsidiaries and affiliates.] Thus does nuclear Lisa seem to leave nuclear Mary in the dust…. There is also $34,550 related to GE which may or may not include their now Japanese owned nuclear branch. (See Center for Responsive politics: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=n00026050&cycle=2014&type=C&newMem=N&recs=100)

Also shocking is that Murkowski is Senator from Alaska, which is 47th in population. Since each state has 2 Senators this really constitutes disproportionate representation. Alaska only has 735,132 people – it wouldn’t even be a very big city and is around the size of Mary Landrieu’s hometown pre-Katrina. Compare, for instance, to Senator Markey’s state of Massachusetts, population 6,692,824. While the two Senator policy is meant to keep areas of low population from being abused, it wasn’t meant for a minority to abuse a majority. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population

More on the problems of the Davis Besse Nuclear reactors:
“2002 reactor head hole
In March 2002, plant staff discovered that the borated water that serves as the reactor coolant had leaked from cracked control rod drive mechanisms directly above the reactor and eaten through more than six inches[13] (150 mm) of the carbon steel reactor pressure vessel head over an area roughly the size of a football (see photo). This significant reactor head wastage on the interior of the reactor vessel head left only 3⁄8 inch (9.5 mm) of stainless steel cladding holding back the high-pressure (~2500 psi, 17 MPa) reactor coolant. A breach most likely would have resulted in a mass loss-of-coolant accident, in which reactor coolant would have jetted into the reactor’s containment building and resulted in emergency safety procedures to protect from core damage or meltdown. Because of the location of the reactor head damage, such a jet of reactor coolant might have damaged adjacent control rod drive mechanisms, hampering or preventing reactor shut-down. As part of the system reviews following the accident, significant safety issues were identified with other critical plant components, including the following:

the containment sump that allows the reactor coolant to be reclaimed and reinjected into the reactor;
the high pressure injection pumps that would reinject such reclaimed reactor coolant;
the emergency diesel generator system;
the containment air coolers that would remove heat from the containment building;
reactor coolant isolation valves; and
the plant’s electrical distribution system.[14]
The resulting corrective operational and system reviews and engineering changes took two years. Repairs and upgrades cost $600 million, and the Davis–Besse reactor was restarted in March 2004.[15]

The U.S. Justice Department investigated and penalized the owner of the plant over safety and reporting violations related to the incident. The company paid $28 million in fines under a settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice.[1] The NRC determined that this incident was the fifth most dangerous nuclear incident in the United States since 1979.[3] The NRC imposed its largest fine ever—more than $5 million—against FirstEnergy for the actions that led to the corrosion.[1]
….
2010 Replacement reactor head problems

After the 2002 incident, Davis–Besse purchased a used replacement head from a mothballed reactor in Midland, Michigan. Davis–Besse operators replaced the original corroded reactor head before restarting in 2004. On March 12, 2010, during a scheduled refueling outage, ultrasonic examinations performed on the control rod drive mechanism nozzles penetrating the reactor vessel closure head identified that two of the nozzles inspected did not meet acceptance criteria. FirstEnergy investigators subsequently found new cracks in 24 of 69 nozzles, including one serious enough to leak boric acid. Root cause analysis is currently underway by the Department of Energy, First Energy, and the NRC to determine the cause of the premature failures.[21] [22] Crack indications required repair prior to returning the vessel head to service. Control rod drive nozzles were repaired using techniques proven at other nuclear facilities. The plant resumed operation in 2010. The existing reactor vessel head was scheduled for replacement in 2011.[23]

2011 Shield Building cracks

An October 2011 shutdown of the plant for maintenance revealed a 30 foot long hairline crack in the concrete shield building around the containment vessel.[24]

2012 Reactor Coolant Pump Seal Pinhole Leak

On June 6, 2012, an approximately 0.1 gpm pinhole spray leakage was identified from a weld in a seal of the Reactor Coolant Pump during a routine Reactor Coolant System walkdown inspection. The plant has entered limited operations, and root cause analysis is underway.[25]” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis–Besse_Nuclear_Power_Station

More on what the Swiss safety measures idea:
“Switzerland’s Proposed Amendment to the CNS
“Nuclear power plants shall be designed and constructed with the objectives of preventing accidents and, should an accident occur, mitigating its effects and avoiding releases of radionuclides causing long-term off-site contamination. In order to identify and implement appropriate safety improvements, these objectives shall also be applied at existing plants”.

“There was, however, some resistance to the idea of amending the Convention despite a basic degree of consent. That’s why it was so important to inform the hesitant Contracting Parties about the different steps in the process in order to reduce the reluctance of making changes”, says Hans Wanner in describing the efforts undertaken by the entire Swiss delegation, which was strongly supported by representatives of the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs.

It was made clear to all that the Convention already provides rules to initiate a potential amendment process. “The technology of nuclear power plants is also subjected to continuous development and improvement”, pointed out ENSI’s Director General. Furthermore, amending international treaties in the light of new developments is in fact the norm rather than the exception.” Read the entire article here: http://www.ensi.ch/en/2014/04/08/switzerland-achieves-majority-in-favour-of-improving-the-convention-on-nuclear-safety/

“House Committee on Energy and Commerce
The Committee on Energy and Commerce, the oldest standing legislative committee in the U.S. House of Representatives, is vested with the broadest jurisdiction of any congressional authorizing committee. It has responsibility for the nation’s telecommunications, consumer protection, food and drug safety, public health research, environmental quality, energy policy, and interstate and foreign commerce. It oversees multiple cabinet-level Departments and independent agencies, including the Departments of Energy, Health and Human Services, Commerce, and Transportation, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Trade Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Federal Communications Commission. (source)
Chairman
Rep. Fred Upton [R-MI6]
Ranking Member
Rep. Henry Waxman [D-CA33]
The chairman is always selected from the majority party. The ranking member is the most senior member of the minority party.
Republicans
30
Democrats
24” https://www.govtrack.us/congress/committees/HSIF

“Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Chairman
Sen. Mary Landrieu [D-LA]
Ranking Member
Sen. Lisa Murkowski [R-AK]
The chairman is always selected from the majority party. The ranking member is the most senior member of the minority party.
Democrats
11
Republicans
10
Independents
1” https://www.govtrack.us/congress/committees/SSEG

“House Committee on Appropriations: Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies
Chairman
Rep. Michael “Mike” Simpson [R-ID2]
Vice Chairman
Rep. Alan Nunnelee [R-MS1]
Ranking Member
Rep. Marcy Kaptur [D-OH9]
The chairman is always selected from the majority party. The ranking member is the most senior member of the minority party.
Republicans
7
Democrats
4” https://www.govtrack.us/congress/committees/HSAP/10

“Senate Committee on Appropriations: Energy and Water Development
Chairman
Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D-CA]
Ranking Member
Sen. Lamar Alexander [R-TN]
The chairman is always selected from the majority party. The ranking member is the most senior member of the minority party.
Democrats
10
Republicans
8” https://www.govtrack.us/congress/committees/SSAP/22

See some additional links below. Note that there are lifetime totals, yearly totals, and for 2014. Only for 2014 has Campaign Cmte & Leadership PAC Combined available. Please check the originals. We used donors which we either know or checked are related to the nuclear industry. We did not do a thorough investigation for it is to only give an idea of the problem. There could be addition or other errors as it was done by hand. Always return to the original, though make sure you study the menu and see the years, lifetime totals, Campaign Cmte only or with Leadership PAC:
Fred Upton career: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00004133&type=I
Fred Upton 2014 http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?type=C&cid=N00004133&newMem=N&cycle=2014
Mary Landrieu 2014 http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?type=C&cid=N00005395&newMem=N&cycle=2014
Landrieu career: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&type=I&cid=N00005395&newMem=N&recs=20
The Center for Responsive Politics, opensecrets.org repeatedly tells us:
“This table lists the top donors to this candidate… The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations’ PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.” So, it’s an attempt to get to possible “influence peddling”