Feb 1, 2025: AI on the Susquehanna River

Sep 29, 2024: The case against restarting Three Mile Island’s Unit-1

Radioactive: The Women of Three Mile Island

Did you catch "The Meltdown: Three Mile Island" on Netflix?
TMI remains a danger and TMIA is working hard to ensure the safety of our communities and the surrounding areas.
Learn more on this site and support our efforts. Join TMIA. To contact the TMIA office, call 717-233-7897.

    

OPPOSITION MOUNTING TO PALISADES ATOMIC REACTOR RESTART: Growing Coalition Presses Environmental Contentions, Meets Comment Deadline

 NEWS FROM BEYOND NUCLEAR

  For immediate release 

  Contact: Wally Taylor, environmental coalition co-counsel, (319) 350-5807, wtaylor784@aol.com 
  Michael Keegan, co-chair, Don’t Waste Michigan, (734) 770-1441, mkeeganj@comcast.net
  Kevin Kamps, radioactive waste specialist, Beyond Nuclear, (240) 462-3216, kevin@beyondnuclear.org 
 
Source:  Beyond Nuclear https://beyondnuclear.org/

 

OPPOSITION MOUNTING TO PALISADES ATOMIC REACTOR RESTART

Growing Coalition Presses Environmental Contentions, 
Meets Comment Deadline

COVERT TOWNSHIP, MICHIGAN, MARCH 5, 2025--By the arbitrarily short March 3rd U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) deadline, environmental intervenors not only amended previous contentions, and filed new ones, with NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, against Holtec’s unprecedented restart scheme at the closed-for-good Palisades atomic reactor. They were also joined by more than 60 additional groups from across the U.S., and nearly 150 individuals, submitting comments critical of NRC’s recently published Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact (EA/FONSI), by NRC’s distinct, but simultaneous and also short, March 3 due date.

Alluding to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a bedrock environmental protection law enacted in 1969, the coalition’s legal co-counsel, Wally Taylor of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, said “Having taken a hard look, the agency cannot choose to ignore what it saw.”

Palisades was designed in the mid-1960s, broke ground on construction in 1967, and fired up in 1971. It was a nuclear lemon from the get-go, and after 51 years of problem-plagued operations, till 2022, has also now become severely age-degraded, dangerously so.

Taylor was alluding to NEPA’s requirement that agencies take a “hard look” at environmental impacts and risks, before undertaking major federal actions. In this case, that would be NRC approving multiple License Amendment Requests (LARs), an Exemption Request, and a License Transfer Request. Holtec seeks NRC’s many approvals, in order to return the Palisades atomic reactor to operational status, from its permanently shutdown, decommissioning status, implemented by the previous owner, Entergy, in spring 2022. 

An additional major federal action is the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) award of $1.52 billion, in the form of a nuclear loan guarantee to Holtec, for the restart scheme. However, the Trump administration has threatened to repeal and revoke the Inflation Reduction Act, and even claw back previously announced bailouts, casting Holtec’s taxpayer-funded subsidies into doubt.

Taylor was specifically referring to NRC’s analysis of significant climate change likely coming in the next 25 years in southwest Michigan. Despite acknowledging the likelihood of rising temperatures and increasingly extreme weather events, NRC then concluded that global warming would have no significant impact on the Palisades Nuclear Power Plant during renewed operations till mid-century.

This flies in the face of the coalition’s expert witness testimony from Arnie Gundersen, chief engineer of Fairewinds. He documented Holtec’s admission that Lake Michigan’s surface water temperature is already rising. Gundersen challenged Holtec’s strategy to address that, arguing that the company’s doubling of the size and capacity of the component cooling water heat exchangers is merely a make work/make money exercise, while installing more cooling towers would be the logical approach instead.

Regarding much of the rest of the EA, the coalition’s co-legal counsel, Terry Lodge of Toledo, Ohio, said “NEPA requires a hard look. Instead, NRC hardly looked at all, at countless increasingly significant effects from such extremes as flooding and drought, as well as monster storms, caused by worsening climate chaos.” 

“NRC staff even stated that Palisades’ restart will make little to no difference in averting the worsening climate catastrophe,” said Michael Keegan, co-chair of Don’t Waste Michigan in Monroe.

Such an admission undermines the supposed Purpose and Need Statement in NRC’s EA, that Palisades’ restart was justified and mandated by a recently passed “clean energy” law in the State of Michigan.

“One problem with that is, nuclear power is not clean, far from it.” Taylor remarked.

The coalition’s comments addressed radioactive and toxic chemical emissions into the air and Lake Michigan from Holtec's reversal of Palisades' long-planned retirement, as well as resumed generation of forever deadly, highly radioactive, irradiated nuclear fuel, adding to the nearly thousand tons already stored on-site, with nowhere to go.

“Electricity is but the fleeting byproduct from Palisades,” Keegan added. “High-level radioactive waste is the actual product, a curse on all future generations.”

Beyond Nuclear and Don’t Waste Michigan, along with other environmental groups, will attend U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments this morning, regarding Holtec's proposed highly radioactive waste dumpsite in New Mexico. With capacity for up to nearly 200,000 tons of irradiated nuclear fuel, it would be the world’s largest. A similar "consolidated interim storage facility," Interim Storage Partners', 40 miles to the east in Texas, with a capacity for up to nearly 45,000 tons, is likewise before the Supreme Court today. There are about 100,000 tons of commercial spent nuclear fuel in the U.S. currently, an amount that increases by more than 2,000 tons annually, at 94 still operating reactors across the country.

If either dumps opens, Holtec could begin high-risk barging of high-level radioactive waste on the surface waters of Lake Michigan, into the Port of Muskegon, MI. This was originally a 2002 DOE plan, as part of the since cancelled Yucca Mountain Project, a national permanent repository targeted at Western Shoshone Indian land in Nevada. But Holtec embraced the barging scheme as its own, in its December 2020 Palisades Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report.

Another coalition expert witness, world-renowned climate scientist and renewable energy advocate, Dr. Mark Z. Jacobson of Stanford University, has testified that nuclear power is an opportunity cost in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and thus detrimental in mitigating climate change. Solar and wind power are more time- and cost-effective, but the more than $16 billion in public bailouts requested by Holtec, for Palisades’ restart, as well as for building two more “Small Modular Reactors” on the tiny site, will likely take many years that we don’t have to avert climate catastrophe, and starve quickly-deployed renewables of needed investment.

Kevin Kamps, radioactive waste specialist at Beyond Nuclear, based 35 miles downwind of Palisades in Kalamazoo, MI, asked “So does NRC’s FONSI mean they regard our area’s population, and environment, as insignificant?”

"A large concentration of African American and low income communities in Covert and Benton Harbor, and Latinos in the agricultural breadbasket of southwest Michigan, and the Indigenous Anishinaabe Nations of the Great Lakes, already bear significant Environmental Justice burdens, which Palisades’ restart will make even worse,” Kamps added.


NOTE TO EDITORS AND PRODUCERS:  For more information about Holtec’s proposed restart of the permanently closed Palisades atomic reactor, and deployment of “Small Modular Reactors” on the same site, as well as at Palisades’ sibling Big Rock Point nuclear power plant site 250 miles north, also on the Lake Michigan shore near Charlevoix, MI, visit this website. To arrange an interview with Arnie Gundersen, chief engineer of Fairewinds, please contact Kevin Kamps of Beyond Nuclear, kevin@beyondnuclear.org, (240) 462-3216.
By admin at Thu, 03/06/2025 - 11:18

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 - Material Control and Accounting Program Inspection Report 05000277/2025402 and 05000278/2025402 (Cover Letter Only)

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 - Material Control and Accounting Program Inspection Report 05000277/2025402 and 05000278/2025402 (Cover Letter Only)
 
ADAMS Accession No. ML25063A220
 
By admin at Thu, 03/06/2025 - 02:20

US SMR deals remain elusive for NuScale | Utility Dive

On a Monday earnings call, executives reported continued progress on NuScale’s Romania power project and U.S. regulatory
 
By admin at Thu, 03/06/2025 - 02:18

Failure After Failure: Let’s Ditch Small Modular Reactors

 

Failure After Failure: Let’s Ditch Small Modular Reactors.

REUTERS/Stephane Mahe

Posted by

Carmine Miklovis in International

 
Imagine a revolutionary new coffee machine – one that can get twice as much coffee from the same amount of beans. This machine would make coffee cheaper to make at home and buy at shops like Dunkin’ and Starbucks. This coffee machine starts to get buy-in from major companies in the coffee business, like Keurig and Nespresso, and is projected to be launched in Summer 2025. Halfway through the spring, it’s announced that, due to delays, it will now be launched in Winter 2027. After another delay, it’s announced that the project is now expected by 2030. Keurig and Nespresso, in response, withdraw from the project, further delaying it until 2035. After 10 years of delays, would you still invest in this machine? Probably not, so why are we investing in an energy technology that’s built on the same promises?

Small modular reactors (SMRs), unlike the coffee machine, are a real technology that promise to make nuclear energy cheaper and more accessible. In theory, their smaller size allows them to be deployed more quickly and in a variety of settings, an advantage over solar panels, wind turbines, and tidal energy, which have location restrictions. Some of these reactor designs can reprocess spent fuel (known as a “closed fuel cycle”) to extract more energy than traditional reactors can from the same amount of fuel. As such, many have hailed these nuclear reactors as the key to addressing the climate crisis, as they seem to resolve a lot of the current problems that have plagued nuclear power thus far.

On an international level, France and India have announced plans to begin constructing SMRs together, praising the energy source for its potential to enable the transition to a low-carbon future. India is also expected to work with U.S. firms to enhance investment in the technology. Similarly, Trump’s pick for energy secretary, Chris Wright, served on the board of Oklo Inc., a company that focuses on advanced nuclear technology, and is pushing for investments in nuclear energy (alongside fossil fuels). As the Trump administration ditches renewables for fossil fuels and nuclear energy, some, including Wright, have said that now is the time for the nuclear renaissance.

Unfortunately, however, it seems increasingly likely that these reactors will fail to live up to their promise. Talks of deploying small modular reactors have been ongoing for over a decade, and while around a hundred designs exist, only two reactors have been deployed–one in China and one in Russia. In the U.S., while private companies and the federal government have invested billions into their development, projects have faced delays and cancellations. Long construction times, issues with quality control, and disproportionately high energy costs (for producers and consumers alike) have led many to conclude that the energy source is a false promise. Recognizing this failure, many of the largest energy companies, such as Babcock & Wilcox and Westinghouse have withdrawn their investments, leaving many other investors hesitant to put any of their assets in the nuclear cause. While the potential of these models is exciting in theory, investors would much rather hedge their bets on just about anything else.

To make matters worse, small modular reactors come with an additional catch: they risk enabling the proliferation of nuclear weapons. SMRs are a dual-use technology; after reactors have extracted energy from the fuel rods (the real-life equivalent of the coffee beans from earlier), they’re left with weapons-grade plutonium in the nuclear waste that could be used to create a potent nuclear weapon. This risk is particularly acute for reactors that reprocess for more energy, as the leftover waste is more potent and more viable for a nuclear weapon. This presents a particular challenge, as in order for the touted benefits of SMRs to materialize, they need to distinguish themselves from the nuclear reactors we have now. As such, these new designs have to be more efficient and take advantage of their versatility, which means a lot of smaller reactors capable of reprocessing. More fissile material (in quantity and quality) coming out of more reactors makes it difficult to effectively monitor where all the waste goes. To complicate things, monitoring is already a problem, as it’s difficult to accurately measure nuclear material as it’s being transported from the facility to a waste disposal unit. The ease of diverting material could provide a pathway for states that have long had nuclear ambitions, such as Iran (who is also in a proxy war against a nuclear-armed adversary), or opportunistic non-state actors (such as domestic extremists or terrorist groups like ISIS) to finally get their hands on a nuclear weapon. 

Unfortunately for proponents, it’s unlikely that the U.S. will be able to control or monitor the spread of this technology. The U.S. cannot set the standards for SMRs when it continues to lag behind Russia and China in production. Even then, why would countries already in China’s global infrastructure program, known as the Belt and Road Initiative, choose to get nuclear reactor designs from the U.S. further down the line when they can get nuclear reactors from China now? Chinese energy technology is likely more interoperable—able to work with pre-existing infrastructure—than U.S. designs, further restricting the U.S.’ potential market share. Even our closest allies wouldn’t want U.S. models, as some of them, including Germany and Japan, have given up on nuclear energy altogether. Given this hesitation and the long delays, SMRs would either fail to be deployed at a sufficient scale to resolve climate change, or would be completed hastily, which increases the risk of state or non-state actors acquiring a nuclear weapon.

While some may argue that any investment in renewable energy is a net positive in the fight against climate change, investing in nuclear energy hamstrings the response of future administrations. Investing in nuclear power creates a dangerous moral licensing, wherein future leaders may feel less incentivized to invest in other, effective renewable energy sources because they feel that they already have it covered with nuclear power. Historically, because of the way subsidies are distributed under the Clean Power Plan, nuclear energy actively stifles the development of other energies. In an effort to make nuclear power prices competitive, the U.S. government subsidizes it, which actively siphons those subsidies away from solar, wind, and tidal energy. As solar energy becomes the cheapest option available, subsidies to expand its gap or aid its clean partners could enhance renewable energy’s grip on the market. Absent these subsidies, however, fossil fuels may retain their foothold in the market for the foreseeable future. Given the existential threat at stake, the risk that this poses for the climate response cannot be overstated.

While advocates of SMRs are right that renewable energy needs to be adopted swiftly, trying to haphazardly rush out these reactors to deploy around the world risks trading one crisis for another, enabling a new era of nuclear proliferation. Similarly, if the Trump administration wants to keep its promise of low energy prices, their best bet is to stop investing in the nuclear power industry and let solar and wind energy take the reins. Like the hypothetical coffee machine, the benefits of SMRs will remain a nice thought, but nothing more than that. As climate change beckons at our doorstep, we can’t afford to invest in a false promise—it’s time to ditch SMRs.

By admin at Tue, 03/04/2025 - 13:50

Wed., March 5: LISTEN LIVE TO U.S. SUPREME COURT ORAL ARGUMENTS ON THE ILLEGALITY OF LICENSING RADWASTE DUMPS IN TX AND NM

 NEWS FROM BEYOND NUCLEAR


 For immediate release 

 Contact: 
 
Kevin Kamps, radioactive waste specialist, Beyond Nuclear,  kevin@beyondnuclear.org, 240-462-3216
 
Stephen Kent, media consultant, skent@kentcom.com, 914-589-5988
 
Source:  Beyond Nuclear https://beyondnuclear.org/

MEDIA ALERT for Wednesday, March 5, 2025


LISTEN LIVE TO U.S. SUPREME COURT ORAL ARGUMENTS ON THE ILLEGALITY OF LICENSING RADWASTE DUMPS IN TX AND NM

WASHINGTON, D.C., MARCH 5, 2025-- 

WHAT?  Wednesday morning, March 5, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Nuclear Regulatory Commission vs. Texas. At issue in the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the U.S.) proceeding is whether the NRC exceeded its authority when it approved licenses for proposed “consolidated interim storage facilities” for high-level radioactive waste including highly irradiated “spent” fuel from nuclear power plants.  Two CISFs are planned for western Texas and southeastern New Mexico.  The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as Amended specifically prohibits private “interim” storage of federal spent nuclear fuel, and disallows the Department of Energy from taking title to the waste (which would be necessary for DOE to transport it to CISFs), unless and until a permanent geologic repository is licensed, built and opened to receive the waste.  The law intended to prevent private “interim” storage of federal radwaste, which is much less robust than permanent storage, and would double the risk of accident or attack during transport, since consolidated “interim” storage  necessitates moving the waste twice, once to the CISF and again to a permanent repository.  The NRC approved recent CISF license applications despite the law, saying it anticipated Congress would change it in the future.  But the federal Fifth Circuit court ruled that the NRC didn’t have that authority. If the Supreme Court strikes that ruling down, it could open the floodgates for thousands of shipments of spent fuel from nuclear power plants across the US, through many states, to CISFs in Texas and New Mexico.  The case pits the nuclear industry’s push for CISFs against the interests of fossil fuel companies which object to high-level radioactive waste dumped in their drilling/fracking areas, the state governments of Texas and New Mexico, which have passed laws prohibiting importation of nuclear waste to their states, and cities along the transport routes which object to it being shipped through their jurisdictions.  Their amicus briefs in the case are posted here.



WHO?  Attorneys for the NRC, Interim Storage Partners, LLC (the Texas CISF company), and for plaintiffs in the legal challenge to licensing CISFs will make their cases before the Supreme Court Justices. Participants in the legal challenge to CISFs include the State of Texas, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) Beyond Nuclear, Sierra Club, and Don't Waste Michigan, et al., a national environmental grassroots coalition of watchdog groups, and Fasken Land and Minerals, Ltd., and Permian Basin Land and Royalty Owners, which advocate for ranching and mineral rights.


WHERE & WHEN?  The SCOTUS oral arguments take place on Wednesday, March 5th at 10am Eastern time.  To listen live, go to https://www.supremecourt.gov/ and click on the “live audio” icon.  Later that day, SCOTUS will also post an audio recording and transcript of the oral arguments. In-person attendance is also an option, but journalists should arrive early to ensure their place. More information  https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/oral_arguments.aspx

 

NOTE TO EDITORS AND PRODUCERS:  Participants in the lawsuits challenging CISFs, their attorneys, and other experts are available for comment and interviews. Fact sheets, and a short educational video, documenting the Environmental Justice burdens of CISFs, and risks of highly radioactive waste transport, and alternatives to this, are posted here. For more information, additional documentation, or to arrange an interview, please contact Stephen Kent, skent@kentcom.com, 914-589-5988.

###
Beyond Nuclear is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit membership organization. Beyond Nuclear aims to educate and activate the public about the connections between nuclear power and nuclear weapons and the need to abolish both to safeguard our future. Beyond Nuclear advocates for an energy future that is sustainable, benign and democratic. The Beyond Nuclear team works with diverse partners and allies to provide the public, government officials, and the media with the critical information necessary to move humanity toward a world beyond nuclear. Beyond Nuclear: 7304 Carroll Avenue, #182, Takoma Park, MD 20912. Info@beyondnuclear.org. www.beyondnuclear.org.
 

--

Kevin Kamps
Radioactive Waste Specialist
Beyond Nuclear

By admin at Mon, 03/03/2025 - 11:50

At Palisades 6% of Employees Tested Positive for Drug and Alcohol

Document Title:
Palisades [50-255], Annual Report Form for Drug and Alcohol Tests for 2024
Document Type:
License-Fitness for Duty (FFD) Performance Report
Document Date:
02/24/2025
 
The query search link below shows there were 27 Single Positive Drug and Alcohol Tests for 2024.
 
If there were xx600xx 450 employees at Palisades in 2024, xx4.5%xx 6% of them failed drug and alcohol tests.
 
No specifics are provided - they have been redacted / withheld.  The raw number of occurrence deduced by mandatory filing into ADAMS yields 27.
 
By admin at Fri, 02/28/2025 - 10:14

U.S. Energy Secretary Wright tours New Mexico national labs

Article on new Trump's DOE appointment Eric Wright and his positions on energy use.
 
https://sourcenm.com/2025/02/25/u-s-energy-secretary-wright-tours-new-mexico-national-labs/

By admin at Wed, 02/26/2025 - 12:37

Nuclear Power in Hanford Controbutes to Radioactive Waste Problem

https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/video-amazons-nuclear-gamble/0f024736-7bc1-4c77-8315-f3956fe09cf6/

By admin at Wed, 02/26/2025 - 12:34

NRC Begins Special Inspection at Hope Creek Nuclear Power Plant

Nuclear Regulatory Commission - News Release
No: I-25-001 February 25, 2025
CONTACT: Diane Screnci, 610-337-5330

NRC Begins Special Inspection at Hope Creek Nuclear Power Plant

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has launched a special inspection at the Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station to review the circumstances of the repeated inoperability of one of the plant’s emergency diesel generators. The plant is operated by PSEG Nuclear, LLC.
 
Plant operators declared one of four emergency diesel generators inoperable on February 20 when water was detected in the lube oil system after the diesel was run following planned maintenance. A similar event occurred on January 31 and PSEG took steps to address the issue at that time.
 
The NRC determined a special inspection was warranted because this is a repeat issue. Emergency diesel generators are important because they provide backup power to safety equipment when power from the electrical grid is not available.
 
“While this did not affect safe plant operation, an independent review of the issue by the regulator is warranted given the repetitive inoperability of a safety-related system,” said Region I Administrator Andrea Kock. “Our inspectors will evaluate PSEG’s response, its work to find the cause, and actions the company is taking to ensure the equipment issues are corrected.”
 
Once the inspection is completed, NRC inspectors will document their findings in a publicly available inspection report, which will be distributed electronically to listserv subscribers and available on the NRC website.
 
The plant is in Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey.
 
By admin at Wed, 02/26/2025 - 02:29

"Constellation and Other Nuclear Stocks Live and Die on AI News Now. It Is a Problem."


Constellation and Other Nuclear Stocks Live and Die on AI News Now. It Is a Problem.


Feb 24, 2025 1:52 pm EST

In this article

MSFT     ORCL     CEG     VST 

Nuclear power stocks sank on a report that Microsoft canceled some data center leases. Above, the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania. (AMY LUTZ/DREAMSTIME)

Nuclear energy stocks tumbled on Monday, continuing a downswing that started on Friday. The stocks’ fortunes are closely tied to growth in artificial intelligence, and there’s news that the demand for power from one big tech player may not be as high as expected.

Two reports from analysts at TD Securities released on Friday and Monday said Microsoft 

MSFT

-1.03% canceled some data center leases, amounting to a couple of hundred megawatts—or enough to power 150,000 or so homes. The report on Monday said that Microsoft’s spending is being supplanted by other players like Oracle 

ORCL  +1.28%.

The mere hint that a big player is pulling back was enough to rattle the market. It’s similar to what happened to these stocks when Chinese AI company DeepSeek suggested that tech firms can make AI products that use less power.

Microsoft, in a statement to Barron’s, played down reports of a pullback, saying that while it sometimes makes spending adjustments, it’s still on track to spend over $80 billion this fiscal year on infrastructure “as we continue to grow at a record pace to meet customer demand.

“While we may strategically pace or adjust our infrastructure in some areas, we will continue to grow strongly in all regions,” a Microsoft representative said.

Constellation Energy 

 

CEG

-5.88%, the country’s largest owner of nuclear plants, was down 6.9% in early afternoon trading. Vistra Corp. VST -5.11%, another large nuclear and natural gas plant owner, was down 3.6%.

Nuclear reactor developers Oklo and NuScale dropped 9% and 1.2% respectively, after previously being down much more.

Paul Dotson, equity trading managing director at TD Securities, wrote in an email that the market appeared to be overreacting to the news. (Dotson wasn’t involved in the reports.) The news “is being misinterpreted,” he wrote. One issue is that the stocks had risen a lot beforehand and investors are “viewing news from a negative perspective—especially from sectors and themes which have outperformed.”

The selloff could signal a larger long-term issue for the stocks.

Nuclear and AI have been a great match over the past year. The nuclear stocks have soared on expected demand from new AI data centers owned by large tech firms like Microsoft. The tech companies like nuclear power because the electricity the reactors produce is reliable and the reactors don’t emit carbon, allowing the companies to meet carbon emissions pledges.

But the nuclear-AI connection isn’t always a great thing for nuclear companies. Upstart nuclear companies like Oklo have to prove over a long time period that they can construct and operate plants at reasonable costs. But their overall value is jumping up and down based on rumors or whims about the intentions of tech companies. The fate of the stocks can fluctuate on an hour-to-hour basis based on news they have no control over.

Write to Avi Salzman at avi.salzman@barrons.com

By admin at Wed, 02/26/2025 - 02:26

Pages