nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Chernobyl shelter’s drone damage includes 330 openings in outer cladding.


 World Nuclear News 9th May 2025

The International Atomic Energy Agency has outlined the scale of the damage caused by a drone strike and subsequent fires to the giant shelter built over the ruins of Chernobyl’s unit 4.

The agency said that investigations continue to determine the extent of the damage sustained by the arch-shaped New Safe Confinement (NSC) shelter following the drone strike on 14 February.

The impact caused a 15-square-metre hole in the external cladding of the arch, with further damage to a wider area of about 200-square-metres, as well as to some joints and bolts. It took about three weeks to fully extinguish smouldering fires in the insulation layers of the shelter.

n its update on the situation, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said: “It took several weeks to completely extinguish the fires caused by the strike. The emergency work resulted in approximately 330 openings in the outer cladding of the NSC arch, each with an average size of 30-50 cm.

“According to information provided to the IAEA team at the site, a preliminary assessment of the physical integrity of the large arch-shaped building identified extensive damage, for example to the stainless-steel panels of the outer cladding, insulation materials as well as to a large part of the membrane – located between the layers of insulation materials – that keep out water, moisture and air.”

The main crane system, including the maintenance garage area, was damaged and it is not currently operational, the IAEA said. The heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems are functional but have not been in service since the strike. Radiation and other monitoring systems remain functional, the IAEA said. There has been no increase in radiation levels at any time during or since the drone strike.

IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said: “We are gradually getting a more complete picture of the severe damage caused by the drone strike. It will take both considerable time and money to repair all of it.”

…………………………………………………………………………………The New Safe Confinement was financed via the Chernobyl Shelter Fund which was run by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). It received EUR1.6 billion (USD1.7 billion) from 45 donor countries and the EBRD provided EUR480 million of its own resources.

On 4 March the EBRD allocated EUR400,000 from the administrative budget of the continuing fund for specialist-led damage assessment……………………………..https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/chernobyl-shelters-drone-damage-includes-330-openings-in-outer-cladding

May 11, 2025 Posted by | safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Improvement notice issued at Dounreay nuclear power plant

By Gabriel McKay, 8 May 25, https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/25146874.improvement-notice-issued-dounreay-nuclear-power-plant/

An improvement notice has been issued at Dounreay nuclear power plant following a “significant potential risk to work safety”.

In February of this year a worker sustained a minor injury when a radiological contamination monitor, which weighed around two tonnes, toppled over.

Though there were no serious injuries, the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) said there was a “significant potential risk to worker safety”.

Dounreay operated from 1955 until 1994 – though research reactors continued to function until 2015 – and is now Scotland’s largest nuclear clean-up and demolition project.

All plutonium on the site had been transferred to Sellafield by December 23, 2019.

The site upon which it stands is scheduled to become available for other uses by 2333.

Tom Eagleton, ONR Superintending Inspector, said: “This was a preventable incident that could have had serious consequences for those nearby.

“The improvement notice requires the Dounreay site to implement measures that will reduce the risk of similar occurrences in the future. 

“Specifically, they must identify all operations involving the movement of heavy equipment and ensure comprehensive risk assessments and appropriate control measures are implemented before the work starts.” 

Nuclear Restoration Services, which owns the plant has until 25 July 2025 to comply with the notice.

The company said: “We take the protection of people and the environment from harm very seriously.

We are taking action to strengthen our practices and management in this area, and will comply with the requirements of the notice received in April, having reported the incident to ONR and carried out an investigation.”

Torness in East Lothian is the last remaining nuclear power station in Scotland still generating electricity.

It is scheduled for shutdown in 2030, following Hunterston B in North Ayrshire in 2022, Chapelcross in Dumfries and Galloway in 2004 and Hunterston A in 1990.

May 11, 2025 Posted by | safety, UK | Leave a comment

Russian drone strike caused tens of millions worth of damage to Chornobyl

Attack damaged €1.5bn containment structure over nuclear reactor with repair costs likely to be borne by western governments


Russian drone strike caused tens of millions worth of damage to Chornobyl

 Attack damaged €1.5bn containment structure over nuclear reactor with repair costs likely to be borne by western governments

Dan Sabbagh in Chornobyl. Photography by Julia KochetovaWed 7 May 2025

A Russian Shahed drone costing up to £75,000 is estimated to have inflicted tens of millions worth of damage to the site of the Chornobyl nuclear power plant, according to initial assessments and engineering experts.

The cost of a full fix is likely to be borne by western governments including the UK, because initial estimates are that a complete repair will cost more than the €25m available in a special international contingency fund.

The strike in mid February did not cause an immediate radiological risk, but it significantly damaged the €1.5bn containment structure built in 2017 to encase the destroyed reactor and is likely to take months if not years to completely repair.

The 110-metre high steel structure at Chornobyl was hit before 2am on 14 February, with sensors registering “something like a 6 to 7 magnitude earthquake,” according to Serhiy Bokov, the chief engineer on duty. “But we clearly understood it wasn’t that,” he said.

The attack – quickly concluded to be caused by a drone flying below at a level where it could not be detected by radar – punctured a 15-sq-metre hole in the outer roof. It also caused a particularly damaging, complex smouldering fire to the inner cladding of the structure that took over a fortnight to put out.

Consisting of two double arches and longer than two jumbo jets, the New Safe Confinement (NSC) was completed in 2017 to secure the hastily built, unstable Soviet-era sarcophagus, which covers over Chornobyl’s ill-fated reactor number four, the site of the world’s worst nuclear disaster in April 1986.

But the attack in February has rendered the sarcophagus open to the elements again, meaning that radioactive dust could get out and rainwater in, though the country’s environmental protection ministry says “the radiation background is currently within normal level and is under constant control”.

More significantly, the confinement structure is now more vulnerable in the longer term to rusting due to greater exposure to the elements and damage to the cladding. Two hundred small boreholes were also drilled into the structure in the effort to douse the cladding fire with water.

“Not fixing it is not an option,” said Eric Schmieman, an American engineer who worked on the design and build of the Chornobyl shelter for 15 years. A complete repair, he said would “cost a minimum of tens of millions of dollars and it could easily go to hundreds of millions” with the repairs taking “months to years,” he added.

Previously the shelter was intended to have a 100-year design life, allowing time to decommission the sarcophagus and nuclear waste below, but this is now in doubt without it being repaired, Schmieman added. Unlike other large metal structures, such as the Eiffel Tower, it was never possible to repaint it to prevent corrosion.

Below the sarcophagus lies a highly radioactive lava like mass, a mix of 200 tonnes of uranium from Chornobyl reactor number four and 5,000 tonnes of sand, lead and boric acid dropped on to the site by Soviet helicopters in the immediate aftermath of the disaster caused by the reactor going out of control.

A more detailed impact assessment is expected to be released in May, but the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), which funded the building of the shelter and is involved in the post bombing analysis, said “it is clear that the attack has caused significant damage”.

Other sources, familiar with the assessment exercise, told the Guardian that Schmieman’s estimates appeared correct. Though the EBRD holds €25m in funds to allow for emergency work, it said “significantly more funding is required” to tackle long-term decommissioning challenges thrown up by the incident…………………………………………………

Further cash for repairs is most likely to come from western governments. Twenty-six countries contributed to the cost of the original shelter, including the US, UK, France, Germany and even Russia – of which the vast steel arch structure cost €1.5bn out of a total €2.1bn fund. Others also made donations, including Turkey.

Home to the remains of a nuclear reactor that went out of control and exploded in April 1986, the Chornobyl site is seven miles from the border with Russia’s ally Belarus. It was occupied by Russian soldiers trying to capture Kyiv in February 2022, and has remained on the frontline after Ukraine regained it that April……………………………………………….

Remotely operated cranes hanging from the confinement shelter were intended to dismantle the sarcophagus and nuclear material below, and the strike hit a point near the maintenance garage Bokov said. That too may impair the plans to gradually dismantle and decommission the disaster site below……………………………….. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/07/russian-drone-strike-caused-tens-of-millions-worth-of-damage-to-chornobyl

May 9, 2025 Posted by | safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Zaporizhzhia: Hurdle or catalyst for a peace deal in Ukraine?

May 6, 2025, Henry Sokolski , https://npolicy.org/zaporizhzhia-hurdle-or-catalyst-for-a-peace-deal-in-ukraine/

In all the peace proposals the United States, Russia, Europe, and Ukraine have made public, one item always shows up: the reopening of the damaged six-reactor Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant. Washington wants to rebuild and operate it, Moscow insists the plant is theirs, and Kyiv says that it must remain Ukrainian. But, it will be to restart the plant. 

Russia insists it can get at least one of the reactors up and running within several months. The United States has no timeline. Ukraine says, even with a solid peace and full control over the plant, bringing all six reactors back online would still take two years or more. No one has ventured how much any of this would cost.

And, there are additional challenges. Russia destroyed the Kakhovka Dam upstream of the plant. Now, what would be required to assure a steady clean supply of cooling water for the reactors? The Russians also laid mines around the plant; the area is also laced with unexploded ordnance. How will these munitions be neutralized? Who will do it? The Russians have looted and damaged much of the plant’s control equipment. How will it be repaired and replaced? Who will certify that the work has been done properly? The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission? The Ukrainian State Nuclear Regulatory Inspectorate? Rosatom? 

More than 75 percent of Zaporizhzhia’s nuclear staff no longer work at the plant. Can they be replaced? Who will replace them? Then, there’s the challenge of rebuilding all of the damaged power lines and transformers necessary to export any electricity from the site. Where will the electricity be sent? Ukraine? The European Union? Russian territories? Who will pay for all of this work? Who will be held responsible if there are accidents? Who will defend the plant against future attacks? The United States? Ukraine? Russia? The EU? 

There are even more questions than these. But as I make clear in the attached piece, we need to get the answers if we want the situation with Zaporizhzhia to be anything other than a hurdle to reaching any lasting peace.

……… Power for whom and at what cost? Even if the Zaporizhzhia reactors could be safely restarted, the problem of distributing the plant’s power remains. Before the war, Zaporizhzhia helped feed Ukraine’s electrical grid and exported surplus power to Europe. Now, the infrastructure connecting the plant to customers is shattered. Transmission lines must be rebuilt. Substations and transformers need replacement. Technical adjustments will need to be made and agreements negotiated over where the electricity will go and how: western Europe, southern Ukraine, or to Russian-controlled territories?

Another question is who will pay for all this work? Will seized Russian assets foot the bill? Or will it be European Reconstruction Bank funds? What of US investment, taxpayer funds, and any private entity potentially interested in chipping in? Once funds are allocated, who would receive the profits, if any, or be responsible for the losses? Who would assume responsibility for possible accidents and damage to property beyond the plant’s site? And, finally, who will bear the costs of ensuring the plant’s security so that its reactors do not become again the targets of future attacks? None of this is yet clear.

As Ukraine, the United States, and Russia have all made refurbishing and operating Zaporizhzhia a condition for peace, dodging these questions is a prescription for mischief. Without clear answers, resurrecting Zaporizhzhia could become more of an obstacle to than a catalyst for peace.

Henry Sokolski is executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center in Arlington, Virginia, served as Deputy for Nonproliferation Policy at the Pentagon (1989-93), and is author of China, Russia and the Coming Cool War (2024).

May 9, 2025 Posted by | safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Starmer ignored nuclear watchdog when he blamed regulations for delays.

Guardian, Rob Edwards, 6 May 25

Office for Nuclear Regulation told government that claims about reactor delays in press release were ‘not true’.

Keir Starmer ignored warnings from his nuclear safety watchdog that it was wrong to blame regulations for delays building new reactors when he launched a plan to revive the nuclear power industry.

The prime minister unveiled the nuclear renaissance strategy in February and said investment had slumped because the industry was “suffocated by regulations”.

However, a document released under freedom of information law reveals that the UK’s Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) told the government in the run-up to the launch that claims about delays to nuclear power in a draft press release were “not true”. Despite this, the claims were repeated in the final release.

ONR was asked to comment on a draft government announcement of a taskforce to speed up the regulation of nuclear power. It made four corrections to the draft, which was passed to the investigative journalism cooperative The Ferret, and shared with the Guardian.

But none of ONR’s corrections were implemented when Starmer made the announcement on 6 February, under the headline “Government rips up rules to fire up nuclear power”.

The attack on nuclear regulations was part of Labour’s attempt to prove its growth credentials and coincided with it clipping the wings of the competition watchdog and hauling in regulators to demand they do more to boost the economy.

The draft release stated that three European regulatory regimes had reached different assessments of the design of the reactors being built at Hinkley Point C in Somerset, “leading to delays and increased costs”.

ONR said this was “not accurate” and that it had refuted such claims before. “Our feeling is that linking regulatory factors into the increasing Hinkley Point C costs and timeframes isn’t true and the sentence doesn’t stand up,” it said.

ONR also suggested that the new taskforce should look at not the “approval” but the “deployment” of new reactor designs. “The reactor approval process has no bearing on the overall speed of delivery, but rather construction,” it said.

Neither amendment was made in Starmer’s announcement, which reiterated the disputed wording in the draft. Two other changes suggested by ONR were also rejected.


The energy company EDF predicted in 2007 that electricity from Hinkley Point C would be cooking Christmas turkeys in 2017. EDF said in January 2024 that the station might not be finished until 2031.

The estimated total cost of building the plant has risen from £18bn in 2016 to £35bn in 2024. This could increase to £46bn when inflation is taken into account.

According to ONR, its assessment of the reactor design was completed in 2012 but construction did not start until 2017. Its regulation had not delayed building since then, it said.

Dave Cullen, who co-chairs a forum for ONR and campaign groups, described Starmer’s announcement as misleading.

“I’m shocked by the cynical and unprofessional approach of the government to this announcement,” said Cullen, who is independent of ONR. “It seems as though it would rather attack an imaginary problem than seriously consider how to approach energy security.”……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/may/06/starmer-nuclear-watchdog-regulations-delays-reactors

May 8, 2025 Posted by | safety | Leave a comment

The Challenge to Japan’s Nuclear Restart

The story of Japan’s nuclear village should serve as a
cautionary tale for other places engaged in debates on nuclear energy.

Nuclear power is a key plank in Japan’s national energy vision, but 14 years after the Fukushima meltdown, the restart process hasn’t overcome the central problem.

By Zhuoran Li, May 03, 2025

The restart of nuclear power plants is based on the Sixth Basic Energy
Plan, approved by the Cabinet in October 2021. Given that the trauma of the
2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster remains vivid in the public consciousness,
the government has adopted a cautious, step-by-step approach. The
reactivation of reactors must first be approved by the Nuclear Regulation
Authority under the new regulatory standards. Subsequently, the restart can
proceed only with the consent of local governments and residents.

The government hopes that its safety-first approach will reassure local
communities and alleviate their concerns about nuclear energy. In addition,
efforts are underway to develop and construct next-generation innovative
reactors. These include plans to replace decommissioned nuclear plants with
advanced models, contingent on securing local support.

While maintaining the effective 60-year operational limit, the government is also promoting a policy that excludes certain shutdown periods from being counted toward
that limit. The story of Japan’s nuclear village should serve as a
cautionary tale for other places engaged in debates on nuclear energy. For
example, Taiwan faces many of the same trade-offs as Japan. On one hand,
Taiwan is an energy importer with a vulnerable supply. On the other hand,
it is prone to earthquakes. As a result, nuclear energy has become a
central political debate.

The Diplomat 3rd May 2025,
https://thediplomat.com/2025/05/the-challenge-to-japans-nuclear-restart/

May 6, 2025 Posted by | Japan, safety | Leave a comment

Kingston Fossil Plant and Oakridge Nuclear Facility – an unholy alliance of radioactive pollution,

While no one was killed by the 2008 coal ash spill itself, dozens of workers have died from illnesses that emerged during or after the cleanup. Hundreds of other workers are sick from respiratory, cardiac, neurological, and blood disorders, as well as cancers.

The apparent mixing of fossil fuel and nuclear waste streams underscores the long relationship between the Kingston and Oak Ridge facilities.

Between the 1950s and 1980s, so much cesium-137 and mercury was released into the Clinch from Oak Ridge that the Department of Energy, or DOE, said that the river and its feeder stream “served as pipelines for contaminants.” Yet TVA and its contractors, with the blessing of both state and federal regulators, classified all 4 million tons of material they recovered from the Emory as “non-hazardous.”

A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency analysis confirms that the ash that was left in the river was “found to be commingled with contamination from the Department of Energy (DOE) Oak Ridge Reservation site.

For nearly a century, both Oak Ridge and TVA treated their waste with less care than most families treat household garbage. It was often dumped into unlined, and sometimes unmarked, pits that continue to leak into waterways. For decades, Oak Ridge served as the Southeast’s burial ground for nuclear waste. It was stored within watersheds and floodplains that fed the Clinch River. But exactly where and how this waste was buried has been notoriously hard to track.

A Legacy of Contamination, How the Kingston coal ash spill unearthed a nuclear nightmare, Grist By Austyn Gaffney on Dec 15, 2020  This story was published in partnership with the Daily Yonder.

In 2009, App Thacker was hired to run a dredge along the Emory River in eastern Tennessee. Picture anindustrialized fleet modeled after Huck Finn’s raft: Nicknamed Adelyn, Kylee, and Shirley, the blue, flat-bottomed boats used mechanical arms called cutterheads to dig up riverbeds and siphon the excavated sediment into shoreline canals. The largest dredge, a two-story behemoth called the Sandpiper, had pipes wide enough to swallow a push lawnmower. Smaller dredges like Thacker’s scuttled behind it, scooping up excess muck like fish skimming a whale’s corpse. They all had the same directive: Remove the thick grey sludge that clogged the Emory.

The sludge was coal ash, the waste leftover when coal is burned to generate electricity. Twelve years ago this month, more than a billion gallons of wet ash burst from a holding pond monitored by the region’s major utility, the Tennessee Valley Authority, or TVA. Thacker, a heavy machinery operator with Knoxville’s 917 union, became one of hundreds of people that TVA contractors hired to clean up the spill. For about four years, Thacker spent every afternoon driving 35 miles from his home to arrive in time for his 5 p.m. shift, just as the makeshift overhead lights illuminating the canals of ash flicked on.

Dredging at night was hard work. The pump inside the dredge clogged repeatedly, so Thacker took off his shirt and entered water up to his armpits to remove rocks, tree limbs, tires, and other debris, sometimes in below-freezing temperatures. Soon, ringworm-like sores crested along his arms, interwoven with his fading red and blue tattoos. Thacker’s supervisors gave him a cream for the skin lesions, and he began wearing long black cow-birthing gloves while he unclogged pumps. While Thacker knew that the water was contaminated — that was the point of the dredging — he felt relatively safe. After all, TVA was one of the oldest and most respected employers in the state, with a sterling reputation for worker safety.

Then, one night, the dredging stopped.

Sometime between December 2009 and January 2010, roughly halfway through the final, 500-foot-wide section of the Emory designated for cleanup, operators turned off the pumps that sucked the ash from the river. For a multi-billion dollar remediation project, this order was unprecedented. The dredges had been operating 24/7 in an effort to clean up the disaster area as quickly as possible, removing roughly 3,000 cubic yards of material — almost enough to fill an Olympic-sized swimming pool — each day. But official reports from TVA show that the dredging of the Emory encountered unusually high levels of contamination: Sediment samples showed that mercury levels were three times higher in the river than they were in coal ash from the holding pond that caused the disaster.

Then there was the nuclear waste. Continue reading →

May 3, 2025 Posted by | employment, environment, history, legal, PERSONAL STORIES, politics, Reference, safety, secrets,lies and civil liberties, USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Situation unstable: IAEA says shots were heard at Zaporizhzhia power plant

Artur Kryzhnyi — Friday, 25 April 2025, 

IAEA experts at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant heard loud gunshots on 23 April near the main administrative building where their office is located.

Source: IAEA press service

Details: In addition, the IAEA team has heard explosions and gunshots at different distances from the plant almost every day over the past week.

“What once seemed almost unthinkable – evidence of hostilities near a large nuclear facility – has become an almost daily occurrence and a familiar part of life at Europe’s largest nuclear power plant. From a nuclear safety point of view,  this is certainly an unstable situation,” said IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi.

Despite the regular sounds of fighting, IAEA experts continue to conduct inspections at the plant to monitor and assess the state of nuclear safety and security…………….

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that the proposal for US control over the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant raises many questions that are difficult to resolve.

Ukrainska Pravda 25th April 2025
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2025/04/25/7509136/

April 30, 2025 Posted by | safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

NUCLEAR STATION = WAR TARGET

 26 April 2025 marked the 39th anniversary of the catastrophic nuclear
explosion in Chernobyl, Ukraine – which, at the time, was part of the
Soviet Union. It’s worth reminding people of the effects of that horrific
event.

Tens of thousands of children and adolescents developed thyroid
cancer in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. Genetic problems have been observed
in the wildlife of the area. The area around the nuclear plant is still
uninhabited. Moreover, the rain that fell in Wales following the explosion
caused radioactive pollution, even though we were 1,600 miles away.

As a result, there has been a serious impact on the agricultural industry, with
upland lamb being banned from entering the food chain until tests show that
the level of Caesium-137 radiation has been adequately reduced. Bans were
issued on 9,800 farms, most of them in Wales and Cumbria. The final bans
were not lifted until 2012 – 26 years after the explosion.

Why mention this now?

Because Chernobyl is in a country that is in the middle of war; a
country that contains other nuclear reactors such as Zaporizhzhia, the
largest nuclear complex in Europe.

Because a shell built over the reactor
at Chernobyl in order to prevent radiation from escaping was hit by a
Russian drone on the 14th of February this year.

Because it is the first war that is being fought on the land of a country where there are active
nuclear reactors.

And because this nightmare could happen to us.

NUCLEAR STATION = WAR TARGET. With all the talk of preparing for war by political
parties in Westminster, the British State’s obsession with nuclear energy
and nuclear weapons is extremely dangerous. Consider that Starmer wants to
see nuclear plants all over the State! All would be a target in war. And
all need to be protected by special police.

All of this is another reason for opposing nuclear, though there are enough already – the radioactive waste without a long-term solution; the fact that waste would be on site
for over a century; the dangers of fire; the fact that it will not be
possible to build enough nuclear to have an impact on climate change; the
diversion of funds and resources from renewable energy; the environmental
mess associated with uranium mining; the threat to the Welsh language by
thousands of workers for a large station; the likelihood that relatively
few workers would be needed for a Modular Reactor (SMR); the extreme cost.

 PAWB 25th April 2025

April 30, 2025 Posted by | safety, UK | Leave a comment

Tripling nuclear brings challenges for nuclear transport

the back-end of the fuel cycle as an “intractable” issue that could hinder nuclear expansion plans: “In the US, one of the big challenges is that no matter what solution you have – interim storage or repository – you’re gonna have to transport hundreds of thousands of tonnes of spent fuel from somewhere to somewhere else

Monday, 14 April 2025, https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/tripling-nuclear-brings-challenges-for-nuclear-transport

Issues such as tariffs, taxes and regulation facing the transport sector as it prepares for the coming growth in nuclear capacity worldwide were highlighted by a panel at the World Nuclear Fuel Cycle 2025 conference.

Transport has always faced challenges with too few ports and carriers willing to accept Class 7 radioactive materials, said panel moderator and Energy Resources International President Eileen Supko, who is also the World Nuclear Transport Institute’s principal representative for North America. (Radioactive materials are Class 7 materials under UN regulations on the transport of dangerous goods).

Panelist George Kargopolov, transportation and special projects director of Montreal-based CIS Navigation agreed. The company operates a fleet of six ships transporting radioactive and nuclear materials including radioisotopes such as cobalt-60 and natural uranium, and has provided nuclear material transport services for almost three decades.

With more and more nuclear power plants around the world, the demand for nuclear transport is growing, but there are not many carriers that are willing to accept nuclear materials for transportation and there are few ports, especially in the USA, that are capable and willing to handle nuclear materials, he said: “The industry is expanding, but the shipping capacity is not.”

He identified four key challenges for nuclear sea transportation: nuclear liability concerns; stowage limitations; port acceptance issues; and political and regulatory challenges, specifically proposals by the USA to levy charges on Chinese-built or linked ships for each port call they make in the USA (known as USTR Section 301). “Nuclear materials carriers are niche carriers, and they will be definitely affected if the [proposed] flat fee of USD1.5 million [per port call] will be applied,” he said.

Kurtis Hinz, president and CEO of Canadian headquartered transporter TAM International, said USTR Section 301 tariffs could lead to a further restrictions and limitations on carriers of Class 7 materials and result in “rate volatility” for the transport of such materials.

For every Chinese-built vessel in its fleet, the shipping line will be charged up to USD1.5 million per port call, Hinz said. “So let’s say the vessel calls into the west coast of the US. That’s USD1.5 million in LA, USD1.5 million in Oakland, USD1.5 million in Seattle tagged on to that vessel,” he said.

“If you’re a big carrier that has 15,000 containers on it, you can spread that cost out. If you’re chartering for small amounts of uranium ore, EUP (enriched uranium product) or things like that, that number hits pretty hard,” he said.

“At the end of the day, we are the last in line on those liner services to try and move material. We have to make alliances … but they will restrict their capacities to make sure they’re running as efficiently into the places they work.”


Transporters of Class 7 materials are facing growing risks of delays and denial of shipments…………………………………………..

Lynch pin


Michael McMahon is vice president of Transportation and Strategic Projects at NAC International, part of the Kanadevia Corporation (formerly Hitachi Zosen Corporation), with more than 30 years’ experience in nuclear materials transportation services, especially in the back-end of the fuel cycle.

“I would say without transportation, there’s no nuclear because the materials have to get from where they are to where they need to be. And that’s not the same place. Without that lynch pin, you really don’t have an industry,” he said.

He also highlighted HALEU fuels as a challenge for the transport sector. Current volumes of HALEU requiring transport are low but this is set to change and become an area of concern over the coming years, he said. The packages that exist today for shipping HALEU are geared towards smaller quantities and are not going to be economically efficient for larger demand in future.

It still takes time and money to get a new package designed now that is going to economically address this market,” he said.

Back-end transport issues should not be forgotten, he added, describing the back-end of the fuel cycle as an “intractable” issue that could hinder nuclear expansion plans: “In the US, one of the big challenges is that no matter what solution you have – interim storage or repository – you’re gonna have to transport hundreds of thousands of tonnes of spent fuel from somewhere to somewhere else … we’re gonna need to address that.

Statistics show that “transportation is absolutely the safest thing we do in nuclear right now”, McMahon said, but a gap between public perception of risks versus the reality of the thousands of nuclear fuel transports completed safely every year present a potential barrier to new nuclear plans. “I think this is going to be a big challenge for us,” he said, calling for a demonstration of the safety of these future transports. “That would be a key aspect for us.”

World Nuclear Fuel Cycle 2025, co-organised by the Nuclear Energy Institute and World Nuclear Association, took place in Montreal, Canada on 9-10 April.

April 29, 2025 Posted by | safety | Leave a comment

Terrifying report warns UK’s nuclear facilities face rising military threat

RUSI also points to the likelihood of increased targeting as more countries adopt nuclear power.

The use of military force near or against nuclear facilities represents an under-addressed threat to international peace and civilian safety, the report warns.

By Ciaran McGrath, Senior News Reporter,
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/2046553/terrifying-report-warns-uks-nuclear

Britain’s nuclear infrastructure is increasingly vulnerable to military attack as global tensions rise, a worrying new report has warned. The Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) study, published on Friday, highlights the growing risk of nuclear power plants being targeted deliberately or incidentally during armed conflict.

While the threat is not new, Russia’s occupation of Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) has shown how such facilities can become strategic objectives in modern warfare, with devastating consequences for civilian populations. Written by RUSI research fellow Darya Dolzikova, the report examines the “strategic and operational logic” behind targeting nuclear installations and urges military and political leaders to prepare for scenarios in which nuclear infrastructure comes under direct threat. It further warns that the use of military force near or against nuclear facilities represents an under-addressed threat to international peace and civilian safety.

Key motivations for attacks include disrupting an enemy’s energy supply, generating public fear, denying access to contested territory through radioactive contamination and halting nuclear weapons programmes.

In each case, the consequences for civilian safety, the environment and regional stability are severe.

RUSI also points to the likelihood of increased targeting as more countries adopt nuclear power.

Ms Dolzikova explains: “The expected growth of nuclear power in the global energy mix may increase the likelihood that future armed conflict will see greater targeting of nuclear energy infrastructure.”

The report outlines several recent examples of nuclear facilities being exposed to military activity, with Zaporizhzhia cited as the most significant.

It warns that even where nuclear plants are not the primary objective, they may lie on key axes of advance and become flashpoints by default.

In response, the think tank calls for urgent measures to improve such sites’ physical protection and operational resilience.

Recommendations include reinforcing legal prohibitions on attacks, integrating counter-CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear) and air defence capabilities, and decentralising energy systems through smaller, modular reactors.

Crucially, the report highlights the psychological impact of nuclear threats.

t points out: “Such threats may be used as a ‘half-step’ between conventional and nuclear weapons – despite key differences in their normative and operational significance.”

The UK operates several nuclear power stations, including Sizewell B and Hinkley Point B, with new projects under development.

While no specific intelligence suggests they are under imminent threat, the report stresses the need for military planners to take the risks seriously and integrate safeguards into all aspects of defence strategy.

RUSI also urges governments to engage the public, building trust and preparing communities for possible emergencies without causing panic.

The report concludes: “Efforts must prioritise the establishment of trust between the population and authorities, and offer clear information and instructions.”

April 29, 2025 Posted by | safety, UK | Leave a comment

On Chernobyl Disaster Anniversary, Repairing Damaged Shield Poses ‘Enormous Challenge’

April 26, 2025 ,By RFE/RL’s Ukrainian Service, Stuart Greer and Oleh Haliv, https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-chernobyl-nuclear-disaster-anniversary-russia/33397012.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawJ6SqxleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETE3RG9aSkhxNzhYNndQMGFFAR4zqGfz15XQZ8lgJtOhc7sSWq1aQn8M_cCUwEQ8_iwc4gjbpLOjfLqY7ftG6g_aem_uTOf_f4ZB8kKArzvpkNfYQ

As Ukraine marks the 39th anniversary of the world’s worst civilian nuclear accident at the Chernobyl power plant, engineers are struggling to find ways to repair the complex’s protective shield more than two months after a Russian drone left a large hole in the structure.

The massive steel dome was designed to protect and confine the radioactive remains of crippled reactor number four that exploded when a routine safety test went wrong on April 26, 1986.

Radiation levels outside the punctured shield have stayed normal since the drone attack, officials say.

But sealing the hole hasn’t been possible because it sits above the crumbling sarcophagus that encases radioactive debris from the reactor.

“How can you fix a roof space where the higher you go up in the building, the higher the radiation levels? They’re so high next to the actual sarcophagus, the reactor unit, that you can’t work above it,” says Shaun Burnie, a nuclear expert with Greenpeace.

Burnie was part of a Greenpeace team invited to Chernobyl to inspect the damage shortly after the February 14 drone strike which Moscow denied it was responsible for.

“It’s a very, very serious, enormous challenge for Ukraine at a time when it’s faced with so many other challenges, and so the international community really needs to step in and support.” says Burnie.

It took emergency crews three weeks to locate and extinguish fires that spread and smoldered through the membrane of the shield’s outer shell.

The new confinement structure was completed in 2019 as part of a $2.2 billion international project involving 45 countries. The temporary rail track used to install it over the reactor has since been dismantled, meaning the massive structure can’t be moved safely to the side for repairs.

The United Nations predicted the shield would “make the reactor complex stable and environmentally safe for the next 100 years.”

But long-term plans to safely dismantle the sarcophagus to allow the removal of radioactive ruins of the reactor are no longer possible following damage to the shield, according to Dmytro Humeniuk, an expert from Ukraine’s State Scientific and Technical Center for Nuclear and Radiation Safety.

The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development has earmarked $450,000 to assess the drone damage to the confinement structure.

Ukrainian Environment Minister Svitlana Hrynchuk estimates the preliminary results of the analysis should be completed sometime in May.

Repairs to the shield will be costly and Ukraine will need significant funding from international donors, predicts Burnie.

“They have to come up with a longer-term plan, which will be very extensive, very complicated, and potentially horrendously expensive.”

April 28, 2025 Posted by | safety, Ukraine | Leave a comment

‘I guarded Britain’s nuclear sites – our security can’t cope with new mini reactors’

mini reactors do not pose miniature hazards. “On security, size doesn’t matter. When it comes to the fuel and the byproducts, they are equally dangerous.”

“You get less energy, but you’re still going to have exactly the same security concerns,” says Okuhara. “How enthusiastic is a site operator going to be paying for security when that’s eating into their bottom line?”

INTERVIEW . Matthew Okuhara, a former armed officer with the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, fears that current security plans will be inadequate to protect the UK’s next generation of nuclear power plants..

Rob Hastings, Special Projects Editor , April 22, 2025

Sometimes he would patrol rural lanes on foot, carrying his assault rifle, looking out for any terrorists hiding in the countryside. On other assignments he would man machine guns mounted on armoured ships, watching for any sign of hostile vessels coming his way. Or he would drive in weapons-laden road convoys, monitoring potential threats from vehicles.

While serving as an armed officer with the Civil Nuclear Constabulary (CNC), Matt Okuhara saw every aspect of how the UK’s nuclear power stations and their radioactive fuel are protected from terrorists.

He spent years escorting the transport of uranium fuel to and from plants, which would be planned for months in advance. “Nuclear material is at its most vulnerable when it’s in transit,” he explains. “You’ve got to move it as secretly as possible.”

Working for the specialist force, Okuhara always felt confident the country’s civil nuclear programme was in safe hands. “Any threat has been detected long before it’s been able to cause any problems,” he says.

However, he believes the situation is “definitely more dangerous now” than when he was serving. Terrorism has become more advanced and there are new fears about so-called hybrid warfare from geopolitical adversaries including Russia.

“You don’t have to be a James Bond super-villain to realise where the vulnerable parts of a site are. You can just look on Google Maps and say, ‘We’ll attack that bit,’ especially now we’ve got drones. The threat has really shot up.”

With new technology also on the horizon, he believes the nuclear industry must face up to big security questions.

The CNC currently guards just a handful of sites, all in relatively remote locations. But experts believe the Government’s planned array of cutting-edge mini nuclear power stations could lead to a “proliferation” of reactors around the country, potentially much closer to towns and cities. This may also lead to their fuel being transported more often.

Small modular reactors (SMRs) are seen as an essential source of green energy for the UK in decades to come. Proponents say they will be quicker and cheaper to build than conventional plants, because they will be largely prefabricated.

But security experts are worried about the complex implications for how SMRs will be policed and protected, as The i Paper revealed this week. Analysts say that thousands more armed officers would have to be recruited, co-ordination with local police would have to be strengthened, and a new national infrastructure force may even have to be created.

Okuhara shares these concerns. “I don’t think the CNC’s current policing model would be able to cope with any more sites,” he says. “The generating sites, they’re kept well away from the public for good reasons.

“One, they’re easier to protect. And two, if something goes wrong, the contingency engineers have got some space to work with.”

What is the Civil Nuclear Constabulary?

  • The CNC is a specialist armed force with about 1,600 officers and staff. It was created in 2005 to guard civil nuclear sites and material.
  • “The CNC will deter any attacker whose intent is the theft, sabotage or destruction of nuclear material, whether static or in transit, or the sabotage of high consequence facilities,” its web page explains.
  • It adds: “If an attack occurs, CNC will defend that material and those facilities and deny access to them. If material is seized or high consequence facilities are compromised, the CNC will recover control of those facilities and regain custody of the material.”

New small reactors, same big risks 

After fighting in the Iraq War with British infantry, Okuhara joined the CNC in 2006 and served for six years. He describes how he helped to protect Gloucestershire’s Oldbury Power Station – which is now undergoing decommissioning – in his new book, Nuclear Copper. “Based within the high metal fences and fortress-like security measures of the power station, there was a heavily armed police presence on duty at any given time,” he writes.

To deter and prevent terrorism, the team patrolled surrounding roads and villages, wearing body armour and carrying G36C assault rifles. They benefited from the rural location by building relationships with local farmers and villagers, who “could recognise an unfamiliar car or person instantly” and knew to inform officers.

Rules currently state that nuclear power stations can only be placed in “semi-urban” settings. A spokesperson for the Department for Energy Security & Net Zero insists: “All new nuclear projects, including SMRs, are prevented from being built in densely populated areas.” The Government is loosening restrictions on them being built in the countryside.

But a majority of industry figures believe that “new nuclear technologies could be safely located closer to densely populated areas,” according to an official consultation paper.

The Whitehall document says that the semi-urban restriction will be reviewed every five years “to ensure it remains relevant and effective,” and the Government is “open to revising” this rule in future……………………….

The nuclear industry argues that SMRs will be small enough to build in urban settings, but Okuhara argues this would rob officers of a key advantage. “An intervention zone around a site gives you plenty of space where you can detect things,” he explains.

And he underlines that mini reactors do not pose miniature hazards. “On security, size doesn’t matter. When it comes to the fuel and the byproducts, they are equally dangerous.”

At the moment, energy companies cover much of the CNC’s costs. But having many smaller sites is likely to make security operations proportionately more expensive.

He continues: “If you think about the largest sites in the UK, places like Sellafield or Dounreay, they’ve got hundreds of officers. There are plenty of people out on patrol. Are these SMRs going to be given sufficient resources? Or are the companies going to be saying: ‘It’s a small reactor, we don’t need as many bodies on the ground’?”

The Government offers reassurance that any SMR will “need to have the highest levels of security in place.” A spokesperson said: “All operators are answerable to a robust and independent regulator – the Office for Nuclear Regulation – which must approve their security plan covering physical, personnel and cyber security.” The CNC declined to comment.

Vetting failures 

If potentially thousands more armed officers must be recruited to guard SMRs, the CNC must improve its vetting procedures. That much is clear because of one man: Wayne Couzens.

Couzens’ name became infamous after he raped and murdered Sarah Everard in Surrey in 2021, having used his Metropolitan Police ID to falsely arrest her.

Couzens had previously been an authorised firearms officer with the CNC, serving at Sellafield and Dungeness. He had passed the CNC’s vetting procedures in 2011 despite previously being accused of numerous sexual offences, including harassment, assault and indecent exposure. He transferred to the Met in 2018.

The CNC’s Chief Constable, Simon Chesterman, apologised “unreservedly” on behalf of the force in 2024, “for the part CNC played in his entry as a full-time police officer.”………………………………………………

No matter whether they’re protecting groundbreaking SMRs, or conventional nuclear sites, or convoys of radioactive fuel, “every officer in the CNC should have the top level of vetting,” he says. “They’ve got access to firearms. They can access some of the most toxic material that has ever existed.”

It’s a reminder that when it comes to nuclear security, sometimes the biggest threats can come from insiders.

‘Nuclear Copper: The Secret World of Nuclear Policing’ by Matt Okuhara is out now (£22.99, Amberley Publishing) @robhastings.bsky.social https://inews.co.uk/news/crime/i-guarded-britains-nuclear-sites-security-mini-reactors-3649782

April 25, 2025 Posted by | safety, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

World’s first AI-powered nuclear power plant Diablo Canyon worries experts after Trump plan

AI technology being used to aid the running of a nuclear power plant has experts worried as Trump scraps AI regulation labelling them it ‘as barriers to American AI innovation’.


 Daily Star 21st April 2025

Fears AI technology powering nuclear power plants could lead to catastrophe have been sparked experts caution the emergence of AI in the nuclear energy industry.

These fears come after Trump scraps AI regulation labelling it “as barriers to American AI innovation” as experts have begun to deploy AI to help run a once dead nuclear power plant.

Boffs at the Diablo Canyon, California’s sole remaining nuclear power plant, has begun exploring the frontier of AI to help aid them running the powerplant. In a venture with artificial intelligence start-up Atomic Canyon, a brand-new artificial intelligence tool designed for the nuclear energy industry.

Pacific Gas and Electricity who runs Diablo Canyon have announced a deal with the artificial intelligence start-up declaring the development of “the first on-site generative AI deployment at a U.S. nuclear power plant”.

Currently the artificial intelligence tool, dubbed Neutron Enterprise, is meant to help workers navigate extensive technical reports and regulations. Due to Neutron Enterprise’s use at the Diablo Canyon, both lawmakers and AI experts are requesting strong guardrails…………………..

Tamara Kneese, the director of tech policy non-profit Data & Society’s Climate, Technology, and Justice program commented on the use of AI in the field. “AI can be helpful in terms of efficiency,” the director said, praising the initial implementation.

“The idea that you could just use generative AI for one specific kind of task at the nuclear power plant and then call it a day, I don’t really trust that it would stop there. And trusting PG&E to safely use generative AI in a nuclear setting is something that is deserving of more scrutiny,” Kneese added…………………… https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/worlds-first-ai-powered-nuclear-35093367

April 25, 2025 Posted by | safety, USA | Leave a comment

Russia’s Rosatom says will proceed with Myanmar nuclear plant despite quake.

Myanmar lies on the boundary between two tectonic plates and is one of the world’s most seismically active countries.

Reuters, By Panu Wongcha-um, April 22, 2025

Summary

Myanmar is one of the world’s most seismically active countries

Myanmar and Russia agreed in early March to build small-scale nuclear facility

Construction timeline and location have not been announced

Thousands were killed in March 28 earthquake

BANGKOK, April 22 (Reuters) – A plan to build a nuclear power plant will continue in Myanmar, a war-torn Southeast Asian country partly devastated by a massive earthquake in March, the Russian state-owned firm leading the project told Reuters.

Myanmar’s junta chief Min Aung Hlaing and Russian President Vladimir Putin last month signed an agreement for a small-scale nuclear facility, three weeks before the 7.7 magnitude quake flattened communities and left more than 3,700 people dead – the country’s deadliest natural disaster in decades.

The agreement involves cooperation to build a Small Modular Reactor (SMR) in Myanmar with an initial 110 MW capacity, consisting of two 55 MW reactors manufactured by Russia’s state nuclear corporation Rosatom.

“The recent earthquake has not affected Rosatom’s plans in Myanmar,” the company’s press office said in an email.

“Rosatom adheres to the highest international safety and reliability standards, including strict seismic resistance requirements.”

The company’s intention to go ahead with the nuclear plan despite the quake, which crippled critical infrastructure, has not been previously reported.

Rosatom declined to provide any construction timeline or details of the location of the proposed nuclear facility that will be powered by RITM-200N reactors, which were made by the company for use initially on icebreaker ships.

A Myanmar junta spokesman did not respond to calls from Reuters seeking comment.

The push for nuclear power in Myanmar comes amid an expanding civil war triggered by a 2021 military coup that removed the elected government of Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi.

Facing a collection of established ethnic armies and new armed groups set up in the wake of the coup, the ruling junta has lost ground across large parts of the country and increasing leaned on its few foreign allies, including Russia.

The conflict, which stretches from the border with China to the coast along the Bay of Bengal, has displaced more than 3.5 million people and left Myanmar’s mainly agrarian economy is tatters.

Myanmar is currently evaluating options for financing the Russia-backed nuclear power project. “This may involve both own and borrowed funds,” Rosatom said. In places such as Bangladesh and Egypt, Russia has funded conventional nuclear power projects through low interest loans.

Authorities in neighbouring Thailand, which is closely monitoring Myanmar’s nuclear developments, assess that a plant could be built in Naypyitaw, a fortified purpose-built capital that was heavily damaged by the earthquake, according to a security source briefed on the matter.

Two other potential sites include a location in the central Bago region and the Dawei special economic zone in southern Myanmar, where the junta and Russia have announced plans to build a port and an oil refinery, according to the Thai assessment.

Myanmar lies on the boundary between two tectonic plates and is one of the world’s most seismically active countries.

MONEY AND MANPOWER

Southeast Asia’s first nuclear facility – the 621 MW Bataan Nuclear Power Plant in the Philippines – was finished in 1984 with a price tag of $2.3 billion but mothballed in the wake of the Chornobyl disaster, opens new tab in the then Soviet Union two years later.

The Philippines and other regional countries have since mounted repeated efforts to explore nuclear energy but made limited progress.

Vietnam is, however, renewing a bet on nuclear power after it suspended its programme in 2016.

Russia and Myanmar have been collaborating in the sector for years, with Burmese students studying nuclear energy and related subjects in Russian universities under government quotas since 2019, according to Rosatom…………………

With the Myanmar junta prioritising exports of natural gas, which could be used to fuel cheaper domestic power generation, to earn foreign exchange, the nuclear plan makes no economic sense for a cash-strapped administration, said Richard Horsey, senior Myanmar adviser at International Crisis Group.

“Nuclear power is very expensive, and Myanmar simply can’t afford it,” he said.

Reporting by Panu Wongcha-um; Editing by Devjyot Ghoshal and Kate Mayberry, https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russias-rosatom-says-will-proceed-with-myanmar-nuclear-plant-despite-quake-2025-04-22/

April 24, 2025 Posted by | ASIA, safety | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »