nuclear-news

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

Demolition of Germany’s Stade reactor building progresses

Thursday, 23 July 2026, https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/in-pictures-demolition-of-stade-reactor-building-progresses

The demolition of the reactor building at the decommissioned Stade nuclear power plant in Lower Saxony, Germany, has been under way since the end of March this year and is expected to be completed by the end of the year.

Stade was the first power plant in Germany to be decommissioned after the country announced a nuclear phase-out policy in 2003. The 640 MWe pressurised water reactor began operating in 1972. The plant operated at a reduced capacity from 2003 until the end of 2005, prior to its shutdown. Dismantling of the power plant began in October 2005. Conventional demolition of individual buildings on the power plant site started in 2023.

The first phase of the building dismantling was completed in spring 2024. It involved the demolition of 17 buildings with a total volume of about 177,000 cubic metres – including the administration building, the workshop and operations building, the emergency diesel generator building, the switchgear building, and finally the engine house. This work laid the foundation for the dismantling of the remaining central building complex. Aspects such as safety, environmental protection, and sustainability through material recycling were given top priority.

The demolition of the reactor building is part of Phase II of the conventional dismantling process and simultaneously marks the beginning of the crucial final phase of the overall project.

On 31 March this year, the demolition of the reactor building began. To weaken the material, a steel ball weighing about four tonnes was first be used to strike the approximately 80-centimetre-thick concrete shell. Following this, the auxiliary buildings were completely demolished before the further demolition of the reactor building began at the beginning of June. This involved the use of, among other things, a 16-tonne hydraulic shear and a 180-tonne cable excavator. The plan is to completely dismantle the reactor building by the end of this year.

In preparation for the demolition, extensive hazardous material remediation of the auxiliary building began in May 2025. This was followed in December by the remediation of the reactor building and the containment vessel within it. For this, the necessary infrastructure was first established both inside and outside the reactor building. This included, in particular, the erection of a complex facade scaffold with stair towers and elevators. As the first externally visible measure immediately before the impending demolition of the reactor building, the external lifting platform, which previously also served for the removal of CASTOR used fuel storage casks and steam generators, was demolished on 6 March.

“With the start of demolition work on the reactor building, we have reached the final technical milestone we have been working towards for a long time,” plant manager Marco Albers said in March. “The entire team has put enormous care into preparing the necessary documentation, and I am very pleased that the review by the independent expert and the approval of the Lower Saxony Ministry for the Environment have now been granted. Now, with the help of our partner, the Freimuth company, we can implement what is probably the most demanding step in the conventional demolition of the Stade plant in a technically sound and safe manner.”

Phases II (involving five building complexes) and III (ten building complexes) have been running in parallel since 2023. The site is scheduled to be released from nuclear regulatory oversight in autumn 2027. This will make the Stade nuclear power plant the first commercially operated pressurised water reactor in Germany to be completely dismantled.

Germany’s nuclear phase-out

Following the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan in March 2011, the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel decided it would phase out its use of nuclear power by the end of 2022 at the latest. Prior to the accident, Germany was obtaining around one-quarter of its electricity from nuclear power.

In August 2011, the 13th amendment of the Nuclear Power Act came into effect, which underlined the political will to phase out nuclear power in Germany. As a result, eight units were closed down immediately: Biblis A and B, Brunsbüttel, Isar 1, Krümmel, Neckarwestheim 1, Phillipsburg 1 and Unterweser. 

The Brokdorf, Grohnde and Gundremmingen C plants were permanently shut down at the end of December 2021. The country’s final three units – Emsland, Isar 2 and Neckarwestheim 2 – shut down in April 2023. All the units are now at various stages of decommissioning.

July 27, 2026 Posted by | decommission reactor, Germany | Leave a comment

Ukraine draft law on Chernobyl decommissioning to 2036 approved

World Nuclear News 10th July 2026, https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/ukraine-draft-law-extends-chernobyl-decommissioning

The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine has approved a draft law which extends to 2036 the funding for the State Programme for the Decommissioning of the Chornobyl Nuclear Power Plant and the Transformation of the Shelter Object into an Environmentally Safe System.

The funding allocated for the programme to 2036 amounts to UAH50.8 billion (USD1.1 billion), of which UAH45.6 billion is to be financed via the state budget and UAH5.2 billion from “international technical assistance”.

According to the Ministry of Energy, the programme required updating following the completion of the shutdown and preparatory phases of the Chernobyl decommissioning process “to reflect current challenges” including additional measures to tackle the damage caused during the war by the month-long Russian occupation in 2022 and by a drone strike last year to the New Safe Confinement protective arch, “and the actual progress of projects” at the site.

“The next stage involves the direct decommissioning of the plant and the continued transformation of the Shelter Object into an environmentally safe system,” a ministry statement said.

“Extending the programme will ensure the uninterrupted continuation of the Chornobyl NPP decommissioning process, support Ukraine’s international commitments in the field of nuclear safety, and facilitate the mobilisation of international technical and financial assistance for projects at the plant,” the ministry said. (Chornobyl is Ukraine’s preferred spelling). The draft law will now go to the Ukrainian parliament for consideration.

July 17, 2026 Posted by | decommission reactor, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Nuclear Autopsy for Indian Point Decommissioning?

June 25, 2026, https://beyondnuclear.org/nuclear-autopsy-during-indian-point-decommissioning/

On June 18, 2026, Beyond Nuclear was the guest speaker before the New York State Decommissioning Oversight Board (NYDOB) in a public meeting focused on the decommissioning of the Indian Point nuclear power station entitled, “Mind the Gap: Decommissioning’s Critical Link to Public Safety & Extended Reactor Operations.” The presentation and Q&A session with the state board is video archived and available for viewing on YouTube beginning at time mark < 01:40:08 to 02:24:18 >. Beyond Nuclear is providing links to supporting documentation.  Following the presentation, the NYDOB recognized further inquiry into  broadening decommissioning’s role at Indian Point is warranted to include the equivalent of an autopsy on the closed reactors’ residual safety margins as an appropriate “cost of doing business” to  enhance public safety and reliable operations at other reactors that are seeking to renew operating licenses in New York and beyond.

The Ginna nuclear power station, a Westinghouse Electric Pressurized Water Reactor by design in upstate New York on Lake Ontario, has filed a Subsequent License Renewal Application to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requesting to extend the 56 year old single unit reactor’s operating license to 60 to 80 years.

The permanently closed Indian Point nuclear station is certified by both the owner Holtec International and the NRC for decommissioning only. Similarly, Holtec International is also certified by the NRC solely as the decommissioning operator of the permanently closed Palisades nuclear station in Covert, Michigan, Combustion Engineering Pressurized Water Reactor. Holtec Internationalis however attempting to “recommission” the Palisades operating license to return to full power. Holtec International has submitted a Letter Of Intent to the NRC that it plans to submit an application to extend its Subsequent License Renewal (60 to 80 years) if it does restart.

Beyond Nuclear presented the State of New York Department of Public Service’s NYDOB with the idea that the decommissioning of the Indian Point nuclear power station in Buchanan, NY is a critically important opportunity. Indian Point is not merely just decommissioning project for dismantlement and site remediation of the three-unit nuclear power station. It is also the opportunity to conduct a scientifically rich strategic “autopsy” of the nearly 50-year old commercial reactor site during the dismantlement and site remediation process. Rather than the decommissioning operator, Holtec International, developing the “custody of care” plan to also haul off the radioactive debris for permanent burial at a distant nuclear waste facility. Beyond Nuclear sees the nuclear waste company, now an aspiring would-be nuclear waste generator, should be directed to develop the “custody of care” to strategically target, harvest and deliver samples of decades old “real world” aged, mapped materials extracted safety-related systems, structures and component to a national laboratory qualified to observe, measure and scientifically analyze the residual safety margins in those material samples taken during the Indian Point decommissioning process.

These aged, extracted samples could then be analyzed and materially evaluated for their residual safety margins after irradiation and embrittlement of the reactors’ base metals, radiation induced cracking in dissimilar beltline weld materials from the reactor pressure vessels. Additional, samples could be cut from reactor internals, concrete core samples from the containment structure and “spent” fuel pools, and sections strategically cut from the original, previously inaccessible 47 and 46 year old electrical cables from Units 2 and 3 as well as other reactor safety-related systems, structures and components. These various harvested materials and their residual safety margins now need to inform a host of identified and unanswered “technical knowledge gaps” for such safety issues as how quick cracks can initiate and grow into the failure of those systems, structures and components in reactors seeking extreme license renewals.

For example, strategic harvesting and the associated laboratory analysis needs to determine the synergy of materially damaging conditions (neutron bombardment, extreme ranges of exposure to heat and rapid cooling, metal fatigue and vibration, extreme pressure, humidity, etc.) is needed to benchmark computer modeling of projected material safety margins remaining in operational nuclear power plants now making application to extend their operating licenses well beyond the original 40 year license at construction, beyond the “initial” 20 year license renewal period for 40 to 60 years and now extending into the first “subsequent” 20 year renewal period from 60 to 80 years of exposure to the harsh operational conditions inside a nuclear power station. The NRC and the nuclear industry are in the planning stages for the second “subsequent” 20 year license renewal period from 80 to 100 years becoming the US nuclear industry’s most apparent “bridge to the future.”

Nuclear autopsies are not a new idea. Harvesting and scientific analysis at the decommissioning stage of permanently closed nuclear power stations has long been recognized by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the US Department of Energy’s (DOE) national laboratories for a critical role to provide “reasonable assurance” of the public safety and reliable reactor operations of safety-related systems, structures and components in reactor licensing and relicensing.

The DOE’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) in the state of Washington was contracted by the NRC Office of Research late in 2015 to publish a Technical Letter Report entitled “Criteria and Planning Guidance for Ex-Plant Harvesting to Support Subsequent License Renewal” (PNNL-27120). Published on December 7, 2017, the PNNL technical letter set out how to identify and mitigate known, but still unresolved “technical knowledge gaps” and make recommendations to effectively resolve and close those “gaps.” PNNL concluded that the targeted extraction of “experiential real world” aged materials from safety-related systems, structures and components permanently closed decommissioning nuclear power stations for laboratory analysis was . The resulting insights into a host of age-related degradation mechanisms to measure and project precise margins to failure will be essential to provide “reasonable assurance” that the materials/components will continue to perform their safety function throughout the subsequent license renewal period for 60 to 80 years.

US regulatory law is now in radical transition by politically-driven pro-nuclear agenda, nuclear industry hype and questionable White House’s decrees for the wholesale rewrite of regulatory law to refocus on “nuclear power benefits.” However, “reasonable assurance” needs to be safe guarded as the evidentiary standard in the NRC’s regulatory process for a legal standard of “adequate protection” established under the Atomic Energy Act for safe and reliable operations under the NRC commercial the reactor licensing and relicensing process.

June 28, 2026 Posted by | decommission reactor | Leave a comment

When will the new nuclear operators be required to put money aside for decommissioning?

4 May 26
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/ai-search/?q=When%20will%20the%20new%20nuclear%20operato

New nuclear operators are required by law to set aside funds for decommissioning and waste disposal from the very first day of a plant’s operation . Under the legal framework established by the government, energy firms must have a robust, funded decommissioning plan (FDP) in place and approved by the Secretary of State before they are even granted permission to begin construction on a new power station 

Key Funding Requirements

The regulations are designed to ensure that the financial risk of cleaning up nuclear sites remains with the developers rather than the taxpayer. According to the government’s Funded Decommissioning Programme Guidance:

  • Insolvency-Proof Funds: Operators must establish funds for clean-up that are administered independently of both the operator and the government to ensure they remain protected even if the company faces financial difficulties .
  • Full Cost Responsibility: Operators are responsible for the full costs of decommissioning and their share of waste disposal. Energy Secretary Charles Hendry stated that requiring a credible funding plan “is the best way to protect taxpayers from having to pick up the bill” .
  • Waste Transfer Pricing: To provide cost certainty for investors, the government proposed a cap on the waste transfer price for disposing of higher-activity waste in a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF). This cap was suggested to be set at a high level—roughly three times current cost estimates—with an additional risk fee charged to operators to compensate the government for accepting any residual risk .

Evolving Models: The Sizewell C Precedent

While the standard requirement involves operators building up independent funds, the government has introduced a new financial model for the Sizewell C project. As detailed in the written ministerial statement Sizewell C | Public on the hook for decommissioning costs of up to £12bn, this project utilises a Regulated Asset Base (RAB) model:

  • Consumer Funding: Decommissioning for Sizewell C will be funded via the RAB, which can include additional costs on consumer electricity bills .
  • Contingent Liabilities: While the RAB includes protections to minimise public risk, the government has acknowledged a potential exposure of up to £12bn in “remote circumstances” where a fund shortfall materialises .
  • Timeline: For modern plants like Sizewell C, decommissioning is expected to be a long-term process, potentially beginning toward the end of the 21st century and continuing until 2160 

The government continues to update these roadmaps to ensure they remain suitable for new technologies, such as Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), while protecting future generations from bearing legacy costs .

You may be interested in learning more about the estimated total cost of the UK’s nuclear cleanup mission, the progress of the Geological Disposal Facility, or how the Regulated Asset Base model impacts consumer energy bills.

May 8, 2026 Posted by | decommission reactor, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear decommissioning in the UK

Corporate report: The NDA group Technical Baseline Review

This report provides a high-level overview of the processes and associated technologies used or planned to be used to deliver our mission.

NDA 26th March 2026 Nuclear Decommissioning Authority NDA group Technology Baseline Review 2026

PDF, 4.76 MB, 67 pages

The UK’s nuclear energy programme, dating from the post-war years, has left a challenging decommissioning legacy to the country: numerous prototype reactors, fuel-manufacturing plants, research centres, reprocessing plants and 11 power stations. The Sellafield site in west Cumbria houses more than 200 nuclear facilities and 1,000 buildings, making it one of the world’s most complex environmental decommissioning challenges. Across the UK many ‘never-done-before’ decommissioning projects will need to be completed. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) was established under the Energy Act (2004) to ensure that the UK’s nuclear legacy sites are decommissioned and cleaned up safely, securely, cost-effectively and in ways that protect people and the environment.

This document provides a high-level overview of the current technology landscape across the NDA group. It outlines the NDA group technology baseline, current technologies being deployed, and the technology opportunities requiring development or adoption to underpin the delivery of our decommissioning mission……………
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nuclear-decommissioning-authority-rd-technical-baseline

March 30, 2026 Posted by | decommission reactor, UK | Leave a comment

‘Significant milestone for nuclear sector’ as Hunterston B relicensed for decommissioning

 The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) has approved the relicensing of
the Hunterston B nuclear power station, ushering the North Ayrshire site
into its formal decommissioning phase.

From 1 April, Nuclear Restoration
Services (NRS), a subsidiary of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority
(NDA), will take on full responsibility as site licence holder, replacing
EDF, which operated the Advanced Gas‑Cooled Reactor (AGR) until it ceased
generation in January 2022 after 46 years in service.

This first phase of
decommissioning work at Hunterston B, on the Firth of Clyde, will involve
the removal of all buildings and plant from the site, with the exception of
the reactor buildings and some adjoining structures which will be modified
to create a Safestore structure.

This Safestore is designed to maintain the
reactor buildings in a safe state through the Quiescence phase of around 70
years. Following this, the final site clearance phase will involve the
removal of the reactors and debris vaults housed in the Safestore
structure, making the site available for future use.

 New Civil Engineer 19th March 2026 https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/significant-milestone-for-nuclear-sector-as-hunterston-b-relicensed-for-decommissioning-19-03-2026/

March 22, 2026 Posted by | decommission reactor, UK | Leave a comment

Decommissioning of Gentilly 1

Ken Collier, 7 Feb 26

As in many industrial projects, many of the hazards come to be known only after the project is well under way or, very often, completed and discontinued.  Gentilly 1 is one of those projects.  Like others, the Gentilly 1 detritus presents grave dangers to living things as the building, equipment and supplies are taken apart.  Complete public review of the decommissioning of Gentilly 1 is required, in my view.  It should not be skipped or sidestepped in any way. 

Notice of the project was posted on the website of the federal impact assessment agency, but it bears scant resemblance to formal and complete impact assessments, and  the public is instructed to send comments to the private consortium, rather than to the federal authorities responsible for making the decision. 

To cite Dr. Gordon Edwards, president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (CCNR):  “Heavily contaminated radioactive concrete and steel would be trucked over public roads and bridges, through many Quebec and Ontario communities, to the Chalk River site just across the Ottawa River from Quebec.”

February 8, 2026 Posted by | Canada, decommission reactor | Leave a comment

Impact Assessment of the Planned Dismantling of the Core of the Gentilly-1 reactor.


To:             The Honourable Julie Aviva Dabrusin, Minister of Environment and Climate Change

From:        The Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (CCNR)

Re:             Impact assessment of the final dismantling of the Gentilly-1 nuclear reactor

Date:         July 5 2026

Reference Number 90092

Cc              Impact Assessment Agency of Canada

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

                  Canadian Nuclear Laboratories                     \

                  Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

The final dismantling of the most radioactive portions of the Gentilly-1 nuclear reactor, proposed by the licensee Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL), will mark the first time that a CANDU power reactor has ever been fully decommissioned – that is, demolished. 

This project is not designated for a full panel review under the Impact Assessment Act (IAA) but you, Minister Dabrusin, have the power to so designate it under the terms of the Act.

The Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility urges you to do so for the reasons stated below.

(1) When it comes to post-fission radioactivity (human made), the long-lived radioactive decommissioning waste from the core area of a nuclear reactor is second only in radiotoxicity and longevity to the high-level radioactive waste (irradiated nuclear fuel) that has already been designated for a full panel review under IAA at the initiative of NWMO, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization. The deadline for initial comments on the NWMO Deep Geological Repository project (DGR) for used nuclear fuel was yesterday, February 4, 2026. [Our comments: www.ccnr.org/GE_IAAC_NWMO_comments_2026.pdf ]

(2) Fully dismantling a nuclear reactor core is a demanding and hazardous undertaking, resulting in voluminous intermediate level radioactive wastes. The highly radioactive steel and concrete structures – fuel channels, calandria tubes, tube sheet, thermal shield, calandria vessel, biological shield, reactor vault, and more – need to be carefully disassembled, using robotic equipment and perhaps underwater cutting techniques with plasma torches. Such methods are described in a 1984 article published by the Canadian Nuclear Society and linked below, on the detailed advanced methods required for dismantling Gentilly-1.


Gentilly-1 Reactor Dismantling Proposal, by Hubert S. Vogt

Reactor and Fuel Handling Engineering Department

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited – CANDU Operation

Published by the Canadian Nuclear Society in the

Proceedings of the 5th Annual Congress

www.ccnr.org/CNS_G-1_1984.pdf

(3) Dismantling the reactor core will create large amounts of radioactive dust and debris some of which will almost certainly be disseminated into the atmosphere, or flushed into the nearby St. Lawrence River, or added to the existing contamination of the soil and subsoil (including groundwater) at the Gentilly site. It is worth noting that, during the Bruce refurbishment operations in 2009, over 500 workers – local tradesmen, mainly – suffered bodily contamination by inhaling radioactive airborne dust containing plutonium and other alpha emitters (i.e. americium) for a period of more than two weeks. The workers were told that respirators were not required. The radioactivity in the air went undetected for two and a half weeks because neither Bruce managers nor CNSC officers on site took the precaution to have the air sampled and tested.

(4) Once disassembled, the bulky and highly radioactive structural components of Gentilly-1 will have to be reduced in volume by cutting, grinding or blasting. Radioactive dust control and radioactive runoff prevention may be only partially effective. Then the multitudinous radioactive fragments must be packaged, and either (a) stored on site or (b) removed and transported over public roads and bridges, probably to Chalk River. The Chalk River site is already overburdened with high-level, intermediate-level, and low-level radioactive wastes of almost all imaginable varieties. Toxic waste dumping at Chalk River is contrary to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and the federal government’s “duty to consult”, since Keboawek First Nation and other Indigenous rights-holders in the area have not given their free, prior, informed consent to either the storage or disposal of these toxic wastes on their unceded territory. A panel review could weigh the options of temporary on-site storage versus immediate relocation. Since there is as yet no final destination for intermediate level wastes, moving those wastes two or three times rather than once (when a final destination exists) will be costlier and riskier. Hence on-site storage is attractive.

(5) The decommissioning waste must be isolated from the environment of living things for thousands of years. The metallic fragments contain such long-lived radioactive species as nickel-59, with a 76,000 year half-life, and niobium-94, with a 20,000 year half-life. The concrete fragments also contain long-lived radioactive species like chlorine-36, with a 301,000 year half-life. Such radioactive waste materials are created during the fission process; they were never found in nature before 1940. NWMO has recommended that such intermediate-level decommissioning waste requires a Deep Underground Repository (DGR) not unlike that proposed for used nuclear fuel. CCNR believes that it is only logical and entirely responsible to call for a panel review of this, the first full decommissioning project for a nuclear power reactor in Canada. The lessons learned will have important ramifications for all of Canada’s power reactors as they will all have to be dismantled at some time. This is not “business as usual”.

Read more: Impact Assessment of the Planned Dismantling of the Core of the Gentilly-1 reactor.

(6) Demolition of buildings is often a messy business, but demolition of a nuclear reactor core is further complicated by the fact that everything is so highly radioactive, therefore posing a long-term threat to the health and safety of humans and the environment. A panel review by the Assessment Agency is surely the least we can do in the pubic interest.

(7) To the best of our understanding, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) is a private contractor managed by an American-led consortium of multinational corporations, whose work is paid for by Canadian taxpayers through the transfer of billions of dollars to CNL from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, a crown corporation wholly owned by the Canadian government. As CNL is a contractor, paid to do a job by AECL, CCNR does not feel assured that the best interests of Quebec or of Canada will automatically be fully served by CNL, as it is not accountable to the electorate. When the job involves demolishing, segmenting, fragmenting, packaging and transporting dangerous radioactive materials, involving persistent radiological toxins, we feel that a thorough public review by means of a comprehensive impact assessment, coupled with the involvement and oversight of accountable federal and provincial public agencies is required to ensure that the radioactive inventory is verified and documented, that no corners are cut and no presumptions go unchallenged. The International Atomic Energy Agency strongly advises that before any reactor decommissioning work is done, there has to be a very precise and accurate characterisation of the radioactive inventory –

all radionuclides accounted for, all becquerel counts recorded, and all relevant physical/chemical/biological properties carefully noted. We have seen no such documentation, but we believe it is essential to make such documentation publicly available before final decommissioning work begins, and to preserve such records for future generations so that they can inform themselves about the radioactive legacy we are leaving them. A panel review could help to ensure that we do not bequeath a radioactive legacy that is devoid of useful information, a perfect recipe for amnesia.

(8) The Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (CCNR) is federally incorporated as a not-for-profit organization, whose official name in French is le Regroupement pour la surveillance du nucléaire (RSN). CCNR/RSN is a member of le Regroupement des organismes environnementaux en énergie (ROEÉ). The ROEÈ has also filed comments on this dossier, linked below, with 10 recommendations. We endorse the ROEÉ submission and all of its recommendations. The ROEÉ submission is en français www.ccnr.org/IAAC_ROEE_G1_2026.pdf  and here is a link to an English translation

www.ccnr.org/IAAC_ROEE_G1_e_2026.pdf .

Yours very truly,

Gordon Edwards, Ph.D., President,

Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility

February 7, 2026 Posted by | Canada, decommission reactor | Leave a comment

Nuclear power’s hidden $1 trillion problem

Jan 10, 2026 Nuclear power is having a big comeback after decades of decline. But it comes with a hidden cost: the enormous amount of time and money needed to decommission a nuclear power plant. We visit the (probably) most expensive civil decommissioning project in Europe to see why nuclear power can leave behind such a difficult legacy.

January 15, 2026 Posted by | decommission reactor | Leave a comment

Fifth Belgian reactor is permanently shut down

World Nuclear News, 1 December 2025

Unit 2 of the Doel nuclear power plant in Belgium’s Flanders region has been taken offline for the final time after 50 years of operation and disconnected from the grid. Its closure is in line with Belgium’s nuclear phase-out policy, under which four other reactors have already been shut down.

Belgium’s Federal Agency for Nuclear Control (FANC) said the operation to shut down the 445 MWe (net) pressurised water reactor (PWR) was carried out under its supervision.

Doel 2 has now entered the decommissioning phase in preparation for its actual dismantling. Fuel will be unloaded from the reactor and cooled in the storage pool, so it can later be transported to temporary storage.

“As with the other shutdowns, the process began with the submission of a ‘notice of cessation of activities’ to the FANC,” the regulator said. “This document describes in great detail the activities that will be carried out after the shutdown to prepare for decommissioning.”

Belgium’s federal law of 31 January 2003 required the phase-out of all seven nuclear power reactors in the country. Under that policy, Doel 1 and 2 were originally set to be taken out of service on their 40th anniversaries, in 2015. However, the law was amended in 2013 and 2015 to provide for Doel 1  and 2 to remain operational for an additional 10 years. Doel 1 was retired in February this year. Duel 3 was closed in September 2022 and Tihange 2 at the end of January 2023. Tihange 1 was disconnected from the grid on 30 September this year……………………………………………….https://world-nuclear-news.org/articles/fifth-belgian-reactor-permanently-shut-down?cid=15961&utm_source=omka&utm_medium=WNN_Daily:_1_December_2025&utm_id=493&utm_map=24ecfe77-e3db-473a-be05-7c037a58ceb4

December 4, 2025 Posted by | decommission reactor, EUROPE | Leave a comment

Ministry Of Defence looking at ‘various sites’ for sub dismantling project

COMMENT. Put more simply. the UK government doesn’t really know what to do with the toxic wastes from nuclear submarines.

Governments are obsessed with “defence” against each other. Meanwhile the public thinks ‘jobs, jobs, jobs” even if those jobs are toxic, and part of a useless industry.

By George Allison, November 28, 2025, https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/mod-looking-at-various-sites-for-sub-dismantling-project/


A written answer in Parliament has confirmed that the Ministry of Defence is actively considering multiple locations for the UK’s permanent submarine dismantling and disposal capability.

Responding to Graeme Downie MP, defence minister Luke Pollard said the demonstrator vessel Swiftsure continues to be dismantled at Rosyth and remains on track to complete in 2026. He noted that “there are six further legacy submarines in Rosyth awaiting to enter the dismantling process.”

Those boats, alongside the 15 stored at Devonport, form the initial batch being processed under the Submarine Dismantling Project.

Pollard confirmed that the enduring solution will be delivered through a separate effort, the Submarine Disposal Capability Project, which is still in its concept phase. He stated that the department is “assessing options for the capability and its location with various sites under consideration within the UK,” adding that Parliament will be informed once a decision is ready.

This aligns with the practical pressures on the Defence Nuclear Enterprise. Rosyth can process only a small number of hulls at a time, while Devonport’s workload is dominated by defuelling, refit work and major safety driven upgrades. Both sites have finite regulatory and environmental headroom.

The broader SDP context helps explain the direction of travel as since 2013 the programme has been tasked with dealing with 27 retired submarines, removing radioactive and conventional waste safely and refining methods as it progresses. Swiftsure’s dismantling has already informed improved procedures, and the MoD reports that later boats will see faster and cheaper waste removal.

The Swiftsure project has proven the process, but the long term question remains open: where should the UK base a facility that will handle future decommissioned submarines on a rolling, multi decade basis. Pollard’s answer confirms that this decision is now in play.

November 30, 2025 Posted by | decommission reactor, UK | Leave a comment

Brian Goodall says no to next stage of submarine dismantling

“Whichever way we deal with all seven of the subs currently at the dockyard I remain completely against any further nuclear submarines being brought to Rosyth.

By Ally McRoberts, Dunfermline Press, 8th Nov 2025

REMOVING the reactor from one of the laid-up nuclear submarines at Rosyth Dockyard is a “stage too far”.

Local SNP councillor Brian Goodall said there was “no need” to cut out the most radioactive parts left in HMS Swiftsure, which is being dismantled as part of an innovative recycling scheme.

He said there was nowhere to safely store the waste and it would also be cheaper to not go ahead – a stance that Labour MP Graeme Downie said was an “insult to the highly skilled team at Rosyth”.

Cllr Goodall said: “The next step will see Babcock cutting out the pressure vessel from the reactor compartment of the decommissioned nuclear submarine Swiftsure, in an experimental process that has never been done anywhere in the world before.

“This part of the submarine dismantling project has required Babcock to seek an increase in the limits to the levels of radioactivity they are allowed to discharge into the environment around the area.

“I believe there’s no clear justification for the cutting out of the pressure vessel, and that the removal for long term storage of the entire reactor compartment would be the more logical, proven, safer and cheaper approach to the next step in the dismantling process.”

There are currently seven old nuclear subs laid up at Rosyth and another 15 at the Devonport naval base in Plymouth.

A further five are due to come out of service.

The dismantling programme at the dockyard began in 2015 – Swiftsure is the first to be cut up – and in September yard bosses said Rosyth could become a “centre of excellence” for dealing with the UK’s old nuclear subs.

The project is doing what no-one else has attempted to do – removing the most radioactive parts left in the vessel, the reactor and steam generators, and recycling up to 90 per cent of the ship.

However, Cllr Goodall said: “The only justification ever given for cutting out the reactor pressure vessels in this way was to reduce the volume of the intermediate level radioactive waste that would be going into the UK’s deep geological radioactive waste facility.

“But such a facility does not exist and it looks like it never will, so long term, near surface storage at a nuclear licensed facility in England, like Capenhurst or Sellafield, is now the most likely outcome.

“And so there’s no need to take forward the experimental stage two part of the proposed procedure, with the increased radioactive discharges associated with it.”

He said he had made the same point at the consultation stage in 2012, before the dismantling of subs at Rosyth got the go ahead.

The councillor continued: “While I support the demonstrator project and, if it’s successful, I’d reluctantly back the on-site dismantling of the six other decommissioned submarines that are currently at Rosyth, I feel it’s not too late to rethink stage two of the process.

“Whichever way we deal with all seven of the subs currently at the dockyard I remain completely against any further nuclear submarines being brought to Rosyth.

“With homes within metres of the site and schools, shops and countless other businesses right next door, Rosyth should never have become a nuclear facility and radioactive waste store.

“We should now be doing all we can to create a long positive, clean, green future for the dockyard.”…………………https://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/25606854.brian-goodall-says-no-next-stage-submarine-dismantling/

November 11, 2025 Posted by | decommission reactor, UK | Leave a comment

Hinkley Point B to begin 95-year decommissioning plan

Clara BullockSomerset, 5 Nov 25, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c986pvg41y2o

A former nuclear power station will begin its 95-year decommissioning process after regulators granted formal consent.

EDF’s Hinkley Point B, which lies on the Somerset coast near Stogursey, has been given the green light to be demolished by the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR).

In August 2022, Hinkley Point B reached the end of its operating life after nearly 46 years of generating electricity.

Dan Hasted, ONR director of regulation, said: “We will continue to proportionately regulate the Hinkley Point B site throughout the decommissioning phase to safeguard workers and the public.”

The nuclear site will transfer from EDF to the Nuclear Restoration Services next year, which will oversee the site’s dismantling.

Under the proposals, Hinkley Point B, which opened in 1976, could be decommissioned in three phases.

The first phase, which will last until 2038, includes the dismantling of all buildings and plant materials except for the site’s safestore structure. This facility will be used to store and manage the residential nuclear waste from the power station.

The second phase will see “a period of relative inactivity” of up to 70 years from 2039, to allow for the radioactive materials within the safestore to safely decay.

The final phase will see the former reactor and debris vaults being dismantled and removed.

Meanwhile, a new nuclear power station, Hinkley Point C, is being constructed near Hinkley B.

November 8, 2025 Posted by | decommission reactor, UK | Leave a comment

EDF’s plan to decommission Hinkley Point B approved despite regulator’s concerns

31 Oct, 2025 By Tom Pashby

The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) has approved EDF’s plans for the
decommissioning of its Hinkley Point B nuclear power station, despite
wide-ranging concerns raised by organisations, including the Environment
Agency, which regulates the nuclear sector.

 New Civil Engineer 31st Oct 2025, https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/edfs-plan-to-decommission-hinkley-point-b-approved-despite-regulators-concerns-31-10-2025/

November 4, 2025 Posted by | decommission reactor, UK | Leave a comment

Escalating nuclear waste disposal cost leads senior MP to demand ‘coherent’ plan.

The escalating costs of the geological disposal facility (GDF) have led the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) chair to demand that the government produce a “coherent plan” to manage the country’s nuclear waste legacy

29 Oct, 2025 By Tom Pashby
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/escalating-nuclear-waste-disposal-cost-leads-senior-mp-to-demand-coherent-plan-29-10-2025/

A GDF represents a monumental undertaking, consisting of an engineered vault placed between 200m and 1km underground, covering an area of approximately 1km2 on the surface. This facility is designed to safely contain nuclear waste while allowing it to decay over thousands of years, thereby reducing its radioactivity and associated hazards.

PAC chair Geoffrey Clifton-Brown’s comments were made in reaction to the revelation that the total life cost of the GDF is up to £15bn more than the sum listed in the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority’s (Nista’s) recent annual report. Nista is a government body and works with the Cabinet Office and Treasury and its August 2025 report published figures from Nuclear Waste Services (NWS), the government body responsible for the GDF, showing the GDF as having a whole life cost of from £20bn to £53.3bn.

However, Nista’s Infrastructure Pipeline dashboard lists the GDF’s CapEx (capital expenditure) range for new infrastructure in 2024/2025 prices as being from £26.2bn to £68.7bn, with the top end being slightly over £15bn higher than the figure published in the annual report.

A government source explained to NCE earlier that the discrepancy is because the figures published in Nista’s annual report was based on 2017/2018 prices, meaning the effects of long-term inflation were not accounted for.

Criticism has previously been levied at High Speed 2 (HS2) because of its use of historic pricing figures to reduce the impact of inflation on budget projects and make the total cost of the project appear to be lower than it would end up being.

Government must have coherent plan to manage nuclear waste – senior MP

The House of Commons PAC is one of the most active and powerful select committees in Parliament, able to formally request that the National Audit Office carry out investigations into government projects.

Nuclear decommissioning is a key area of focus for the Committee because of the high total costs, which will hit the public purse into the far future. Sellafield is seen as the government’s flagship project within the wider nuclear decommissioning programme.

The scale of future nuclear decommissioning is clear in the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority: Annual Report and Accounts 2024 to 2025, which says: “the discounted best estimate of the future costs of the decommissioning mission of £110.1bn”. This is a £5bn increase on the previous year.

October 31, 2025 Posted by | decommission reactor, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries