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

Gordon Edwards explains and comments on Canada’s policy on radioactive waste and nuclear decommissioning

Until recently, Canada’s stated policy on radioactive waste management consisted of a flimsy 25-year-old statement of 143 words, making no mention of intermediate level waste (such as decommissioning waste) or plutonium extraction (reprocessing).

In 2019, a team of IAEA nuclear experts reviewed Canada’s nuclear regulatory practices and recommended that Canada produce an enhanced radioactive policy statement and articulate an accompanying national radioactive waste strategy for the first time ever.

In 2020 Canada accepted this recommendation and undertook a two year consultation period with hundreds of Canadian organizations and individuals. 

Non-governmental organizations overwhelmingly recommended that Canada should have radioactive waste management and decommissioning agency that is independent of the nuclear waste producers and agencies that promote nuclear power, such as the Natural Resources Department (NRCan).

They also recommended that reprocessing (plutonium extraction) be banned altogether and that careful consideration be given to establishing a classification of radioactive waste materials based on toxicity, mobility, longevity, and radioactive progeny. Special attention was paid to the need for a policy regarding intermediate level wastes such as those resulting from rector decommissioning operations.

In 2022 a draft policy was released for public comment and an alternative policy was recommended by Nuclear Waste Watch, incorporating the policy recommendations mentioned in the preceding paragraphs.

In March 2023, the government — through NRCan, the very department that is obligated to promote nuclear power and uranium mining — released its final radioactive waste and decommissioning policy. That document ignores almost completely the input from civil society over the course of the previous two years. The policy is verbose and rhetorical with very little substance, and with a pronounced pro-nuclear bias.

On May 25, Nuclear Waste Watch hosted a “debriefing” webinar to inform other groups who had also participated in the consultation process of the nature of the government’s policy, and the distressing fact that NRCan has relegated to the nuclear waste producers the task of constructing a radioactive waste strategy for Canada.

Here is a short slide show (bilingual) that summaries and briefly comments on the main features of the Canadian government’s radioactive waste policy:


May 29, 2023 Posted by | Canada, decommission reactor | Leave a comment

Canada’s radioactive waste and decommissioning policy is a failure

by Ole HendricksonMay 8, 2023

Ole Hendrickson argues Canada’s new radioactive waste and decommissioning policy ignores Indigenous rights, public input and international safety standards.

Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) issued a news release on March 27 headlined “Now Live: Government of Canada’s Modernized Policy for Radioactive Waste and Decommissioning for Canada.” 

NRCan then waited five more days before making the policy available on its website. 

Why the delay? 

If a government agency knows that information will generate a negative reaction from the public, it posts it quietly on a Friday to minimize media attention. 

The Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA) gave the policy a failing grade, saying, “There is no provision for independent management of nuclear waste.”  

Nor does the policy acknowledge Article 29(2) of the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. 

“States shall take effective measures to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent,” the Article reads.

After NRCan released a draft of the policy a year earlier, the Council of Canadians sent out an action alert that triggered 7,400 emails demanding “an independent oversight body free from industry influence to regulate our radioactive waste.” 

Nuclear Waste Watch submitted An Alternative Policy for Canada on Radioactive Waste Management and Decommissioning based on International Atomic Energy Agency safety standards and requirements for decommissioning, waste storage, and waste disposal.

Why does Canada’s new radioactive waste and decommissioning policy ignore Indigenous rights, public input and international safety standards? Is this a desperate attempt to revive a fading nuclear industry by allowing it to ignore its waste problem?

The new policy illustrates the conflict of interest facing NRCan Minister Jonathan Wilkinson, charged with promoting nuclear energy under the Nuclear Energy Act.

When Budget 2023 was tabled, John Gorman, president of the Canadian Nuclear Association, wrote in a LinkedIn post, “I am personally grateful to Minister Wilkinson in particular, and his team of dedicated staff at NRCan (including but not limited to Mollie Johnson, Claire Seaborn, John Hannaford, and Debbie Scharf), who have championed the role of nuclear in Canada.”

As NDP deputy leader Alexander Boulerice noted at a recent press conference, NRCan has been infiltrated by pro-nuclear proponents. 

“They don’t have to knock on the door to get into the house because they own the house,” Boulerice said.

In other OECD countries, multiple competent regulatory authorities are involved in radioactive waste management and decommissioning. Nearly all have a national oversight body.  France also has a national financial evaluation commission to assess the funding of costs of dismantling nuclear installations and of managing spent fuel and other radioactive waste. 

In contrast, Canada suffers from a nuclear waste governance void. Canada’s benign nuclear regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), allows the nuclear industry to propose its own waste disposal projects with limited technical oversight and no financial oversight.  The Nuclear Waste Management Organization is a private organization run by the nuclear utilities that produce the waste.

Canada also now has a weak, hands-off, industry-friendly policy.  

Nuclear non-proliferation experts have warned Canada that extracting plutonium from high-level fuel waste risks weapons proliferation. The policy shirks responsibility for the oversight of plutonium extraction (or “reprocessing”), even as the government has given $50.5 million to a start-up company, Moltex Energy, to develop this technology.

The new policy will allow current projects for abandonment of federal nuclear waste to continue. In 2015, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited contracted private companies to manage its $16 billion waste liability. 

Without prior consultation with local First Nations, these companies (Texas-based Fluor and Jacobs, and SNC-Lavalin), through their Canadian Nuclear Laboratories subsidiary, quickly announced plans to create new permanent waste disposal facilities next to the Ottawa and Winnipeg Rivers.  

Their hastily conceived projects are now dragging through licensing and environmental assessment processes, opposed by municipal governments and citizens’ groups.  

Parliament is responsible for scrutinizing public spending and ensuring proper accountability of expenses. The lack of cost-benefit analysis of disposal projects for the federal government’s own waste is irresponsible. The private companies behind these projects would be happy to receive waste management funds in perpetuity.

The old policy stated clearly that waste owners are responsible for funding waste management facilities “in accordance with the ‘polluter pays’ principle”.  The new policy merely calls upon the industry to develop “conceptual approaches” and to update on “funding plans.” This opens the door to federal subsidies for non-federal waste owners.

The new policy acknowledges for the first time ever that Canada’s nuclear industry is importing waste in the form of radioactive “sealed sources” not of Canadian origin.  These waste imports and other industrial radioactive wastes eventually end up in Canada’s only licensed commercial waste storage facility at AECL’s Chalk River Laboratories, potentially increasing the federal nuclear liability.

The new policy is silent on small modular reactor (SMR) fuel waste. According to a 2022 study in the prestigious journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, SMRs would produce up to 30 times more waste per unit electricity generated, and novel SMR waste types would pose serious disposal challenges.

Rather than requiring transparency in the form of credible cost estimates and technical analyses of safety for disposal facilities in its new policy, the federal government is subsidizing new reactors that will create additional wastes, impose financial burdens on future Canadians, and create risks of nuclear weapons proliferation.  

Canada’s new radioactive waste and decommissioning policy is a failure.

Ole Hendrickson is an ecologist, a former federal research scientist, and chair of the Sierra Club Canada Foundation’s national conservation committee.

May 12, 2023 Posted by | Canada, decommission reactor | Leave a comment

Divers enter Sellafield’s nuclear pool for first time in 65 years

A GROUP of specialist divers have entered Sellafield’s nuclear pool for the
first time in over 60 years. Divers have been carrying out vital clean-up
and decommissioning work in the oldest legacy storage pond on the
Sellafield site.

The last time a human entered Sellafield’s Pile Fuel
Storage Pond was in 1958, when records show a maintenance operator and
health physics monitor carried out a dive into the newly constructed pond
to repair a broken winch.The pool went out of use in the 1960s but now
divers have returned as part of work to decommission and clean up the site.

Carlisle News & Star 1st April 2023

April 5, 2023 Posted by | decommission reactor, UK | Leave a comment

Germany will complete nuclear phase-out as planned but technology’s risks remain – env min

31 Mar 2023, Benjamin Wehrmann

 The era of nuclear power in Germany will end on 15 April as planned, the country’s environment minister has said.

Minister Steffi Lemke stressed that the phase-out would not endanger the power supply security in Germany or other countries, arguing that ending nuclear power will ultimately make the country a safer place.

However, despite nuclear power production in Germany coming to an end, the risk of nuclear accidents remains due to the ageing reactor fleet in neighbouring countries and previously “unthinkable” threats such as sabotage or war-related damage to reactors in Ukraine, Lemke said.

The renewable power industry welcomed the nuclear exit’s completion, stating that wind and solar power are ready to replace the reactors, whereas a survey suggests most people in the country appear to be sceptical whether the energy system is ready to run without them.

The three remaining nuclear plants in Germany will be shut down for good on 15 April, following a three-month extension granted in the context of the European energy crisis, environment minister Steffi Lemke confirmed to journalists in Berlin.

“The technology’s era is over” in the country, Lemke said, arguing that this will make Germany a safer place and put a stop to generating nuclear waste. Germany’s energy security will not be jeopardised by the decommissioning of the three plants, Isar 2 and Neckarwestheim 2 in southern Germany and Emsland in the north, Lemke said……………………………………



31 Mar 2023, 11:38

Benjamin Wehrmann

Germany will complete nuclear phase-out as planned but technology’s risks remain – env min

The era of nuclear power in Germany will end on 15 April as planned, the country’s environment minister has said. Minister Steffi Lemke stressed that the phase-out would not endanger the power supply security in Germany or other countries, arguing that ending nuclear power will ultimately make the country a safer place. However, despite nuclear power production in Germany coming to an end, the risk of nuclear accidents remains due to the ageing reactor fleet in neighbouring countries and previously “unthinkable” threats such as sabotage or war-related damage to reactors in Ukraine, Lemke said. The renewable power industry welcomed the nuclear exit’s completion, stating that wind and solar power are ready to replace the reactors, whereas a survey suggests most people in the country appear to be sceptical whether the energy system is ready to run without them.

The three remaining nuclear plants in Germany will be shut down for good on 15 April, following a three-month extension granted in the context of the European energy crisis, environment minister Steffi Lemke confirmed to journalists in Berlin.

“The technology’s era is over” in the country, Lemke said, arguing that this will make Germany a safer place and put a stop to generating nuclear waste. Germany’s energy security will not be jeopardised by the decommissioning of the three plants, Isar 2 and Neckarwestheim 2 in southern Germany and Emsland in the north, Lemke said.

The country has managed to restructure its gas supply following the loss of Russia as a trade partner, which has been the main cause of the energy crisis, and would replace the capacity of the outgoing reactors with new renewable power installations and gas-fired power stations, said Lemke. Power exports to nuclear power state France reached record levels during the energy crisis, which underlined the fact that nuclear plants do not automatically provide a safeguard in crisis situations, she said.

Completing the nuclear exit in Germany had originally been planned for the end of 2022, but the war in Ukraine and its repercussions had led parliament to decide a limited runtime extension to support the power system and allow Germany and neighbouring countries to ensure supply security. Opposition politicians from the conservative Christian Democrats (CDU) and from the government coalition party Free Democrats (FDP) had repeatedly advocated for further extending the plants’ runtime. However, chancellor Olaf Scholz’s government ultimately restricted the extension to mid-April.

Nuclear power has become expendable and that’s good news. Renewable power will take it from here.

Simone Peter, head of renewables association BEE

“Ageing nuclear plants are one of the greatest risks in Europe” – Lemke

Fully dismantling the roughly 30 plants in the country and deciding on a long-term nuclear waste storage solution are tasks that will take several decades, the Green Party minister said. “These tasks will be a challenge in the next few years,” Lemke said. Nuclear power has been used in Germany for 60 years and it’s now clear that it is “a high-risk technology that ultimately cannot be fully controlled.” Three generations have benefitted from nuclear power use in Germany, but about 30,000 generations will be affected by the ongoing presence of nuclear waste, she argued. Finding a final repository, especially for highly radioactive waste, will now be “a very difficult but unavoidable” task.

At the same time the risk of nuclear accidents would not be completely unavoidable, Lemke added. Ageing reactors in the immediate neighbourhood, sabotage of energy infrastructure and the “previously unthinkable” scenario of reactors operating in an active warzone, such as the Zaporizhzhia plant in Ukraine, continue to pose real danger for people in Germany and elsewhere in Europe, she stressed. “Ageing nuclear plants are one of the greatest risks in Europe,” Lemke said, but stressed that every country had the right to decide on the technology’s use on its own territory.

Inge Paulini, head of the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS), pointed out that seven reactors abroad currently operate within less than 100 kilometres from the German border, which means they still pose a direct threat to the population. “Germany’s nuclear phase-out doesn’t mean all risk is gone,” Paulini said, arguing that the need for an effective and state-of-the-art radiation protection programme had not been forgotten in the country.

The German Renewable Energy Federation (BEE) commented that the nuclear exit’s completion is a step that is both “feasible and necessary” from the energy industry’s perspective. Beyond the immediate risk of nuclear accidents, new plants simply could not compete economically with renewable power and are too inflexible in their use to serve as a capacity backup to iron out fluctuations in renewable power generation, BEE head Simone Peter said.“We cannot afford inflexibility on the power market as the share of renewable energy is growing,” she argued, adding that more nuclear power ultimately meant blocking renewable expansion.

“Nuclear power has become expendable and that’s good news. Renewable power will take it from here,” said Peter…………………………………………………

April 2, 2023 Posted by | decommission reactor, Germany | Leave a comment

Russia closes down the world’s largest nuclear-powered strategic submarine (they don’t say where the radioactive wastes go)

Russia Loses World’s Largest Nuclear Submarine, NewsWeek, BY BRENDAN COLE ON 2/6/23

The Russian Navy has confirmed it has decommissioned its nuclear-powered strategic submarine Dmitry Donskoy, which formed part of Moscow’s formidable Cold War weapon system.

There had been speculation for months about the fate of the submarine, which had been launched in 1980 and whose NATO reporting name was Typhoon.

In 2021, Russia’s state news agency Tass reported that the vessel would stay in service until 2026.

It was the first of six Akula-class Northern Fleet submarines laid down at the Sevmash shipyard in Severodvinsk on the White Sea which were commissioned in the 1980s.

At 574 feet long, Dmitry Donskoy‘s status as the world’s largest submarine was overtaken by the 608-feet-long Belgorod nuclear submarine, which was commissioned in July 2022. Dmitry Donskoy had a displacement of around 53,000 tons and was modernized and re-equipped in 2002 with the “Bulava” missile.

While it was reported in July 2022 that the vessel had been terminated, no official confirmation was expected until the end of the year. The vessel’s last reported activity was in the sea trials of SSN Krasnoyarsk in September 2022.

On Monday, Vladimir Maltsev, head of the Russian Movement for Navy Support, told TASS that the vessel had been “decommissioned” and would “await utilization at a naval base in Severodvinsk together with two other units of this project.”

The class was the backbone of the Soviet Union’s second-strike nuclear deterrent, with 20 massive R-39 “Rif” SLBMs (submarine-launched ballistic missile) having up to 200 warheads in total. The Drive described it as the “most deadly single weapon system” Russia had designed in the Cold War. Newsweek has contacted the Russian defense ministry for comment.

Russia suffered problems with another of its vessels recently, the 1000-foot flagship Admiral Kuznetsov, which is reportedly unable to move under its own power. Russia’s only aircraft carrier has been out of service and in dry dock for repairs for more than five years and has been beset by technical setbacks………………..

February 8, 2023 Posted by | decommission reactor, Russia | Leave a comment

Lithuania deal to dismantle Soviet-era nuclear reactors could be world first

Pamela Largue , January 9, 2023

Two contracts have been signed to plan the dismantling and waste management for the Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant in Lithuania.

The first of two four-year contracts was signed with a consortium led by Westinghouse Electric Spain, including Jacobs Slovakia, and Lithuanian Energy Institute.

The second contract was signed with another consortium led by the French company Electricite de France.

The dismantling services will be provided in two phases. The first will see contractors propose engineering solutions for dismantling the reactor.

The engineering design concept will be assessed and then further developed in consultation with stakeholders, namely the European Commission, Ministry of Energy of the Republic of Lithuania, CPVA (Central Project Management Agency) and VATESI (State Nuclear Power Safety Inspectorate).

Audrius Kamienas, director general of the Ignalina plant, said in a statement that the signing of the contracts is an important milestone, as dismantling the reactor core is the most challenging part of the decommissioning.

“There are only a few examples of graphite reactors being dismantled in the world today, but the RBMK reactor type has never been dismantled before.

“This is an extremely complex task, unprecedented in the world, for which preparatory work will continue for several more years.”

Physical dismantling of the reactor will commence in 2028 and will be funded by the EU Ignalina Programme.

Graphite-moderated reactor

Dismantling two of the most powerful RBMK reactors is believed to be a decommissioning first.

According to the World Nuclear Association, Soviet-designed RBMK (reaktor bolshoy moshchnosty kanalny, high-power channel reactor) is a water-cooled reactor with individual fuel channels and uses graphite as its moderator.

Ignalina could be the first graphite-moderated reactor plant to be dismantled, making it an important test bed for methodologies that could be used to decommission others of the same type, such as the UK’s Magnox and advanced gas-cooled reactors, which also have graphite cores.

Jacobs Energy, Security & Technology senior vice president Karen Wiemelt, commented: “Our teams based in the UK, France and Slovakia are applying decommissioning skills acquired through work on some of the world’s most complex and challenging nuclear sites including Sellafield and Fukushima.”

In 2002, the Lithuanian government decided to shut down Ignalina NPP, which supplied up to 88% of the country’s electricity.

January 9, 2023 Posted by | decommission reactor, EUROPE | Leave a comment

Dismantling Sellafield: the epic task of shutting down a nuclear site

Nothing is produced at Sellafield anymore. But making safe what is left behind is an almost unimaginably expensive and complex task that requires us to think not on a human timescale, but a planetary one

Guardian, by Samanth Subramanian 15 Dec 22,

“……………………………………………………………………….. Laid out over six square kilometres, Sellafield is like a small town, with nearly a thousand buildings, its own roads and even a rail siding – all owned by the government, and requiring security clearance to visit………. having driven through a high-security gate, you’re surrounded by towering chimneys, pipework, chugging cooling plants, everything dressed in steampunk. The sun bounces off metal everywhere. In some spots, the air shakes with the noise of machinery. It feels like the most manmade place in the world.

Since it began operating in 1950, Sellafield has had different duties. First it manufactured plutonium for nuclear weapons. Then it generated electricity for the National Grid, until 2003. It also carried out years of fuel reprocessing: extracting uranium and plutonium from nuclear fuel rods after they’d ended their life cycles. The very day before I visited Sellafield, in mid-July, the reprocessing came to an end as well. It was a historic occasion. From an operational nuclear facility, Sellafield turned into a full-time storage depot – but an uncanny, precarious one, filled with toxic nuclear waste that has to be kept contained at any cost.

Nothing is produced at Sellafield any more. Which was just as well, because I’d gone to Sellafield not to observe how it lived but to understand how it is preparing for its end. Sellafield’s waste – spent fuel rods, scraps of metal, radioactive liquids, a miscellany of other debris – is parked in concrete silos, artificial ponds and sealed buildings. Some of these structures are growing, in the industry’s parlance, “intolerable”, atrophied by the sea air, radiation and time itself. If they degrade too much, waste will seep out of them, poisoning the Cumbrian soil and water.

To prevent that disaster, the waste must be hauled out, the silos destroyed and the ponds filled in with soil and paved over. The salvaged waste will then be transferred to more secure buildings that will be erected on site. But even that will be only a provisional arrangement, lasting a few decades. Nuclear waste has no respect for human timespans. The best way to neutralise its threat is to move it into a subterranean vault, of the kind the UK plans to build later this century.

Once interred, the waste will be left alone for tens of thousands of years, while its radioactivity cools. Dealing with all the radioactive waste left on site is a slow-motion race against time, which will last so long that even the grandchildren of those working on site will not see its end. The process will cost at least £121bn.

Compared to the longevity of nuclear waste, Sellafield has only been around for roughly the span of a single lunch break within a human life. Still, it has lasted almost the entirety of the atomic age, witnessing both its earliest follies and its continuing confusions. In 1954, Lewis Strauss, the chair of the US Atomic Energy Commission, predicted that nuclear energy would make electricity “too cheap to meter”. That forecast has aged poorly. The main reason power companies and governments aren’t keener on nuclear power is not that activists are holding them back or that uranium is difficult to find, but that producing it safely is just proving too expensive.

… The short-termism of policymaking neglected any plans that had to be made for the abominably lengthy, costly life of radioactive waste. I kept being told, at Sellafield, that science is still trying to rectify the decisions made in undue haste three-quarters of a century ago. Many of the earliest structures here, said Dan Bowman, the head of operations at one of Sellafield’s two waste storage ponds, “weren’t even built with decommissioning in mind”.

As a result, Bowman admitted, Sellafield’s scientists are having to invent, mid-marathon, the process of winding the site down – and they’re finding that they still don’t know enough about it. They don’t know exactly what they’ll find in the silos and ponds. They don’t know how much time they’ll need to mop up all the waste, or how long they’ll have to store it, or what Sellafield will look like afterwards. The decommissioning programme is laden “with assumptions and best guesses”, Bowman told me. It will be finished a century or so from now. Until then, Bowman and others will bend their ingenuity to a seemingly self-contradictory exercise: dismantling Sellafield while keeping it from falling apart along the way.

To take apart an ageing nuclear facility, you have to put a lot of other things together first. New technologies, for instance, and new buildings to replace the intolerable ones, and new reserves of money. (That £121bn price tag may swell further.) All of Sellafield is in a holding pattern, trying to keep waste safe until it can be consigned to the ultimate strongroom: the geological disposal facility (GDF), bored hundreds of metres into the Earth’s rock, a project that could cost another £53bn. Even if a GDF receives its first deposit in the 2040s, the waste has to be delivered and put away with such exacting caution that it can be filled and closed only by the middle of the 22nd century.

Anywhere else, this state of temporariness might induce a mood of lax detachment, like a transit lounge to a frequent flyer. But at Sellafield, with all its caches of radioactivity, the thought of catastrophe is so ever-present that you feel your surroundings with a heightened keenness. At one point, when we were walking through the site, a member of the Sellafield team pointed out three different waste storage facilities within a 500-metre radius. The spot where we stood on the road, he said, “is probably the most hazardous place in Europe”.

Sellafield’s waste comes in different forms and potencies. Spent fuel rods and radioactive pieces of metal rest in skips, which in turn are submerged in open, rectangular ponds, where water cools them and absorbs their radiation. The skips have held radioactive material for so long that they themselves count as waste. The pond beds are layered with nuclear sludge: degraded metal wisps, radioactive dust and debris. Discarded cladding, peeled off fuel rods like banana-skins, fills a cluster of 16-metre-deep concrete silos partially sunk into the earth.

More dangerous still are the 20 tonnes of melted fuel inside a reactor that caught fire in 1957 and has been sealed off and left alone ever since. Somewhere on the premises, Sellafield has also stored the 140 tonnes of plutonium it has purified over the decades. It’s the largest such hoard of plutonium in the world, but it, too, is a kind of waste, simply because nobody wants it for weapons any more, or knows what else to do with it.


………………………………… I only ever saw a dummy of a spent fuel rod; the real thing would have been a metre long, weighed 10-12kg, and, when it emerged from a reactor, run to temperatures of 2,800C, half as hot as the surface of the sun. In a reactor, hundreds of rods of fresh uranium fuel slide into a pile of graphite blocks. Then a stream of neutrons, usually emitted by an even more radioactive metal such as californium, is directed into the pile. Those neutrons generate more neutrons out of uranium atoms, which generate still more neutrons out of other uranium atoms, and so on, the whole process begetting vast quantities of heat that can turn water into steam and drive turbines.

During this process, some of the uranium atoms, randomly but very usefully, absorb darting neutrons, yielding heavier atoms of plutonium: the stuff of nuclear weapons. The UK’s earliest reactors – a type called Magnox – were set up to harvest plutonium for bombs; the electricity was a happy byproduct. The government built 26 such reactors across the country. They’re all being decommissioned now, or awaiting demolition. It turned out that if you weren’t looking to make plutonium nukes to blow up cities, Magnox was a pretty inefficient way to light up homes and power factories.

For most of the latter half of the 20th century, one of Sellafield’s chief tasks was reprocessing. Once uranium and plutonium were extracted from used fuel rods, it was thought, they could be stored safely – and perhaps eventually resold, to make money on the side. Beginning in 1956, spent rods came to Cumbria from plants across the UK, but also by sea from customers in Italy and Japan. Sellafield has taken in nearly 60,000 tonnes of spent fuel, more than half of all such fuel reprocessed anywhere in the world. The rods arrived at Sellafield by train, stored in cuboid “flasks” with corrugated sides, each weighing about 50 tonnes and standing 1.5 metres tall.

………….. at last, the reprocessing plant will be placed on “fire watch”, visited periodically to ensure nothing in the building is going up in flames, but otherwise left alone for decades for its radioactivity to dwindle, particle by particle.

ike malign glitter, radioactivity gets everywhere, turning much of what it touches into nuclear waste. The humblest items – a paper towel or a shoe cover used for just a second in a nuclear environment – can absorb radioactivity, but this stuff is graded as low-level waste; it can be encased in a block of cement and left outdoors. (Cement is an excellent shield against radiation. A popular phrase in the nuclear waste industry goes: “When in doubt, grout.”) Even the paper towel needs a couple of hundred years to shed its radioactivity and become safe, though. A moment of use, centuries of quarantine: radiation tends to twist time all out of proportion.

On the other hand, high-level waste – the byproduct of reprocessing – is so radioactive that its containers will give off heat for thousands of years. …………………………….

Waste can travel incognito, to fatal effect: radioactive atoms carried by the wind or water, entering living bodies, riddling them with cancer, ruining them inside out. During the 1957 reactor fire at Sellafield, a radioactive plume of particles poured from the top of a 400-foot chimney. A few days later, some of these particles were detected as far away as Germany and Norway. Near Sellafield, radioactive iodine found its way into the grass of the meadows where dairy cows grazed, so that samples of milk taken in the weeks after the fire showed 10 times the permissible level. The government had to buy up milk from farmers living in 500 sq km around Sellafield and dump it in the Irish Sea.

From the outset, authorities hedged and fibbed. For three days, no one living in the area was told about the gravity of the accident, or even advised to stay indoors and shut their windows. Workers at Sellafield, reporting their alarming radiation exposure to their managers, were persuaded that they’d “walk [it] off on the way home”, the Daily Mirror reported at the time. A government inquiry was then held, but its report was not released in full until 1988. For nearly 30 years, few people knew that the fire dispersed not just radioactive iodine but also polonium, far more deadly. The estimated toll of cancer deaths has been revised upwards continuously, from 33 to 200 to 240. Sellafield took its present name only in 1981, in part to erase the old name, Windscale, and the associated memories of the fire.

The invisibility of radiation and the opacity of governments make for a bad combination. Sellafield hasn’t suffered an accident of equivalent scale since the 1957 fire, but the niggling fear that some radioactivity is leaking out of the facility in some fashion has never entirely vanished. In 1983, a Sellafield pipeline discharged half a tonne of radioactive solvent into the sea. British Nuclear Fuels Limited, the government firm then running Sellafield, was fined £10,000. Around the same time, a documentary crew found higher incidences than expected of leukaemia among children in some surrounding areas. A government study concluded that radiation from Sellafield wasn’t to blame. Perhaps, the study suggested, the leukaemia had an undetected, infectious cause.

It was no secret that Sellafield kept on site huge stashes of spent fuel rods, waiting to be reprocessed. This was lucrative work. An older reprocessing plant on site earned £9bn over its lifetime, half of it from customers overseas. But the pursuit of commercial reprocessing turned Sellafield and a similar French site into “de facto waste dumps”, the journalist Stephanie Cooke found in her book In Mortal Hands. Sellafield now requires £2bn a year to maintain. What looked like a smart line of business back in the 1950s has now turned out to be anything but. With every passing year, maintaining the world’s costliest rubbish dump becomes more and more commercially calamitous.

The expenditure rises because structures age, growing more rickety, more prone to mishap. In 2005, in an older reprocessing plant at Sellafield, 83,000 litres of radioactive acid – enough to fill a few hundred bathtubs – dripped out of a ruptured pipe. The plant had to be shut down for two years; the cleanup cost at least £300m. …………………………………………………………………………….

Waste disposal is a completely solved problem,” Edward Teller, the father of the hydrogen bomb, declared in 1979. He was right, but only in theory. The nuclear industry certainly knew about the utility of water, steel and concrete as shields against radioactivity, and by the 1970s, the US government had begun considering burying reactor waste in a GDF. But Teller was glossing over the details, namely: the expense of keeping waste safe, the duration over which it has to be maintained, the accidents that could befall it, the fallout of those accidents. Four decades on, not a single GDF has begun to operate anywhere in the world. Teller’s complete solution is still a hypothesis.

Instead, there have been only interim solutions, although to a layperson, even these seem to have been conceived in some scientist’s intricate delirium. High-level waste, like the syrupy liquor formed during reprocessing, has to be cooled first, in giant tanks. Then it is vitrified: mixed with three parts glass beads and a little sugar, until it turns into a hot block of dirty-brown glass. (The sugar reduces the waste’s volatility. “We like to get ours from Tate & Lyle,” Eva Watson-Graham, a Sellafield information officer, said.) Since 1991, stainless steel containers full of vitrified waste, each as tall as a human, have been stacked 10-high in a warehouse. If you stand on the floor above them, Watson-Graham said, you can still sense a murmuring warmth on the soles of your shoes.

Even this elaborate vitrification is insufficient in the long, long, long run. Fire or flood could destroy Sellafield’s infrastructure. Terrorists could try to get at the nuclear material. Governments change, companies fold, money runs out. Nations dissolve. Glass degrades. The ground sinks and rises, so that land becomes sea and sea becomes land. The contingency planning that scientists do today – the kind that wasn’t done when the industry was in its infancy – contends with yawning stretches of time. Hence the GDF: a terrestrial cavity to hold waste until its dangers have dried up and it becomes as benign as the surrounding rock.

A glimpse of such an endeavour is available already, beneath Finland. From Helsinki, if you drive 250km west, then head another half-km down, you will come to a warren of tunnels called Onkalo…………. If Onkalo begins operating on schedule, in 2025, it will be the world’s first GDF for spent fuel and high-level reactor waste – 6,500 tonnes of the stuff, all from Finnish nuclear stations. It will cost €5.5bn and is designed to be safe for a million years. The species that is building it, Homo sapiens, has only been around for a third of that time.

………. In the 2120s, once it has been filled, Onkalo will be sealed and turned over to the state. Other countries also plan to banish their nuclear waste into GDFs…. more

December 14, 2022 Posted by | - plutonium, decommission reactor, technology | Leave a comment

Failure of the “nuclear renaissance” leaves Britain with super-costly closures of reactors, and electricity shortage

UK facing electricity supply woes after nuclear power stations shut, MPs told

Larger and smaller reactors carry risks, island nation failed to keep pace with nuclear fleet closure

Lindsay Clark, 1 Nov 2022 , Electricity shortages appear inevitable for the UK due to the decommissioning of the nation’s aging estate of nuclear power stations, according to evidence submitted by industry to politicians.

…….. Writing to the Commons Science and Technology Committee, Manchester University’s Dalton Nuclear Policy Group said: “Sadly, it is now much too late to avoid a negative impact on the UK’s electricity supply due to the closure of our nuclear fleet. All eleven of Britain’s Magnox plants have been shut down for many years – the last being the Wylfa plant on Anglesey which ceased operation on New Year’s Eve 2015.

It added: “The fleet of Advanced Gas-cooled Reactors (AGRs) operated by [French energy firm] EDF is also now seeing closures.”

In February, the UK government was warned taxpayers would have to make up a multibillion-pound shortfall to decommission nuclear power stations unless a history of overspending is reversed. EDF Energy runs seven AGR stations in the UK, part of eight second-generation reactors set to be decommissioned which provide 16 percent of the nation’s electricity. The AGR stations are scheduled to stop producing electricity by 2028.

Last year the government injected £5.1 billion ($5.8 billion) into the Nuclear Liabilities Fund – now valued at £14.8 billion ($17 billion) – which it set up in 1996 to meet the costs of decommissioning AGR and Pressurized Water Reactor stations. But EDF’s latest cost estimate to decommission the stations in March last year was £23.5bn ($27 billion). Public spending watchdog the National Audit Office has warned more money will be needed unless the government and EDF avoid overspending.

But as well as overspending, decommissioning also presents a problem for electricity supply.

“It is unlikely that there will be any significant extension to these projected dates, although there may be scope for some slight delays in closure. Once the AGRs are all closed, the UK will only have one reactor from the current nuclear fleet still operational – the pressurised water reactor at Sizewell B,” Dalton Nuclear Policy Group said.

…….  “it is due to the failure since 2008 – with the exception of the long-delayed Hinkley Point C – of all proposals for a nuclear renaissance in the UK to move from plans to reality,” the group said.

In May, EDF admitted to another year’s delay and £3 billion ($3.5 billion) extra cost in Hinkely Point C – the UK’s first nuclear power station to be built in 20 years. The revised operating date for the site in Somerset is now June 2027 and total costs are estimated to be in the range of £25 billion to £26 billion ($29 billion).

EDF said it would have no cost impact on British consumers or taxpayers. The power station had been due online by 2017 at a cost of around £20 billion ($22 billion)………………….. The Science and Technology Committee is set to hear oral evidence for its inquiry on Delivering Nuclear Power during hearings this week.

 The Register 1st Nov 2022

November 2, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, decommission reactor, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Cocooning the past. Plutonium reactor in Eastern Washington encased in steel to protect the river

The K-East nuclear reactors stands stripped bare and decommissioned near the banks of the Columbia River at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Hanford’s “sister reactors”, the K-East and the K-West Reactors, were built side-by-side in the early 1950’s. K-East was the eighth. The two reactors both ran for more than fifteen years before being shut down in 1970 and 1971. The Hanford Nuclear Reservation was constructed as part of The Manhattan Project.

Beginning in 1943, the site was used to produce plutonium for the “Fat Man” bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan that brought an end to World War II. After a short lull, plutonium production was ramped up in 1947 and continued until 1987 when the last reactor ceased operation. Weapons production processes left solid and liquid radioactive wastes that posed a risk to the local environment including the Columbia River. In 1989, the U. S. Department of Energy (DOE), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Washington State Department of Ecology began clean up of Hanford.

Tri City Herald, BY ANNETTE CARY OCTOBER 26, 2022

A reactor at the Hanford site has been “cocooned” for the first time in a decade. The addition of a new steel enclosure for the 1950s reactor is an “iconic change to the landscape” at the nuclear reservation along the Columbia River and helps protect the river, said John Eschenberg, president of Department of Energy contractor Central Plateau Cleanup Co. Eight of the nine plutonium production reactors that line the Columbia River in Eastern Washington are being put in temporary storage for up to 75 years to allow radiation in their core to decay to lower levels before a permanent solution is attempted.

The newest cocoon, with its straight sides and sloping roof, creates a new look for the Hanford skyline, much different from the other cocooned reactors which retain much of the original shape of the reactors. Completion of the cocoon over the K East Reactor leaves just one more to be cocooned at Hanford.

The K East Reactor was number seven, with its twin, the K West Reactor, not expected to be cocooned until about 2030. The ninth reactor, B Reactor, will remain unsealed and open for tours as part of the Manhattan Project Historical National Park. From World War II through the Cold War Hanford produced about two-thirds of the plutonium for the nation’s nuclear weapons program.

Production stopped with the end of the Cold War, and now the nation is spending for than $2.5 billion a year on environmental cleanup work at the 580-square-mile nuclear reservation by Richland.

For the K East Reactor a new form of temporary storage was used that Hanford officials expect to save money and better protect the reactor as it waits for final disposition in the coming decades.

No decision has been made on the final plan for disposing of Hanford’s defunct reactors, but allowing radiation to decay will provide safer conditions for workers then. In Hanford’s traditional cocooning, reactors are torn down to little more than their radioactive core, any openings are sealed up and the roof is replaced. NEW TYPE OF REACTOR COCOON But for the K East Reactor, a new, free-standing structure 123 feet tall and nearly 154 feet wide was built over the reactor for the first time.

The new method of cocooning should better protect the nearly 80-year-old concrete of the reactor from wind, sand and cycles of freezing and thawing that take a toll on Hanford structures, Eschenberg said. It also should reduce the need for roof maintenance.

Although the new steel enclosure was designed to last 75 years, Eschenberg said final disposition of the reactor is not likely to be done that late. No decision has been made on what final disposition will be.

Every five years Hanford workers will enter the reactor to check on its condition. New lighting installed within the reactor and between the steel cocoon and the original reactor walls will help make that easier as workers check the condition of the concrete, look for any rodents or other animals, and make sure there has not been any intrusion of water.

………………………………………………… DECADES OF CLEANUP BEFORE COCOONING The initial work at the K East Reactor to allow cocooning of the reactor, which operated from 1955 to 1971, started decades ago. The water basins at the K West and K East reactors were used to store uranium fuel irradiated at N Reactor but not processed to remove plutonium at the end of the Cold War.

The fuel was removed from the two basins, each holding 1.2 million gallons of water, in a 10-year project completed in 2004.

But the fuel had decayed after decades underwater, leaving a highly radioactive sludge that was not all contained and shipped to dry storage at Hanford’s T Plant until 2019, after first being consolidated at the K West Reactor.

Water next was drained from the K East Reactor basin, which is work not yet done at the K West Reactor. The dry K East Reactor basin was filled with grout that was then cut into pieces and removed, requiring the site to be backfilled.

A village of support structures had to be demolished, including the reactor’s powerhouse and fuel oil storage. In addition, sediment basins used for reactor cooling water had to be cleaned up.

Tens of thousands of tons of contaminated soil and debris, including underground piping and utilities, were removed, with most of it taken to a huge lined landfill in central Hanford for disposal.

Most of the soil contamination was from chromium, which was used as a corrosion inhibitor in reactor cooling water. Groundwater contaminated with chromium is pumped up, cleaned and returned to the ground before it enters the Columbia River, about 300 yards from the K Reactors. …………………………… more

October 26, 2022 Posted by | decommission reactor, USA | Leave a comment

The long process of shutting down Hunterston B nuclear power station

Experts say that the site of the current Hunterston B power station could
be available for use again in around 90 years. Details of the upcoming
decommissioning process for the nuclear site have been revealed as part of
a public consultation over the next stage of the power station site’s
life. Defuelling of the site is currently under way, with decommissioning
expected to start in 2025/26 and it will take around 12 years to demolish
the majority of buildings. A long period of inactivity, thought to be
around 70 years, will follow before the remaining site will be
decommissioned and potentially ready for reuse. Following defuelling,
operators EDF will hand over responsibility to the Nuclear Decommissioning
Authority. The authority’s subsidiary Magnox will deliver decommissioning
activities for the decades to come. A report drawn up for the consultation
reveals that a giant ‘safestore’ will be created from the existing
reactor building, which can shield decaying radioactive materials for up to
100 years. It says: “Buildings and structures will be demolished to ground
level, with basement areas and tunnels backfilled and regraded using
material produced from the decommissioning process.

 Largs & Millport News 26th Aug 2022

August 28, 2022 Posted by | decommission reactor | Leave a comment

Storage of nuclear wastes and of dead nuclear reactors is becoming a political nightmare

Beyond electricity production, the use of nuclear energy also creates
problems related to the storage of spent nuclear fuel and waste, which
brings an additional layer of complexity to the question. Storage of
nuclear fuel requires facilities in geological locations which must fulfil
demanding criteria.

There are only so many places which fulfil these
criteria. Furthermore, long-term fuel storage will create commitments (and
costs) for hundreds of years.

It is easy to imagine how nuclear waste
storage can easily turn into a political nightmare – one can look at the
options in Belgium where the neighboring Luxembourg quickly protested
against storage too close to the border between the two countries; or to
the United States where nuclear storage facilities are planned on
indigenous lands.

A new politics of waste is emerging – the power plants
themselves. As the IEA demands an urgent new round of investment in ageing
nuclear sites, what are we to do with the old ones? The UK newspaper the
Independent very recently ran a story about one such site, Douneray, in the
North of Scotland. It first opened in 1955 and ceased operations in 1994.
And yet, local campaign groups have never been as active. Why? As a 2020
report by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority puts it, the Douneray site
will be ready for other purposes in the year…2333. As old sites come to
an end, new politics of decommissioning begin.

PACCS research (accessed) 13th Aug 2022

August 14, 2022 Posted by | 2 WORLD, decommission reactor | Leave a comment

Germany continues to close down its last remaining nuclear reactors

Germany’s nuclear power operators will continue to decommission the
country’s last three remaining plants, even as the government weighs
whether to keep the facilities running over the winter. E.ON, RWE and EnBW
confirmed they had not procured additional fuel to extend the life of the
Isar 2, Emsland and Neckarwestheim plants beyond the end of the year, when
they are legally-mandated to close.

FT 12th Aug 2022

August 14, 2022 Posted by | decommission reactor, Germany | Leave a comment

UK tax-payers face £billions of costs for the indefinite future in the clean-up of closed Hinkley Point B nuclear power station

‘End of an error’, say protesters as nuclear plant is shut down. LAST
week’s closure of Hinkley Point B after 46 years was described by
anti-nuclear campaign group Stop Hinkley as ‘the end of an error’. Stop
Hinkley spokesman Roy Pumfrey said Monday (August 1) was not a day to
celebrate the life of Hinkley Point B.

He said Monday was a day to mourn
the production of radioactive waste that would need to be carefully and
expensively managed and monitored for many generations to come. Mr Pumfrey
said: “Some of these timescales for managing the legacy of waste left
over by Hinkley B are truly staggering. EDF’s jamboree on Monday
conveniently ignores the nuclear waste which has been generated over the
past 46 years.

“Under current plans it will be at least another 100 years
before all this dangerous waste is under the ground. “And the costs are
staggering, too. “EDF’s most recent £23.5 billion estimate for
decommissioning advanced gas-cooled reactors (AGRs) suggests it could cost
around £3-4 billion to decommission Hinkley B.

“The taxpayer has been
asked to top up the decommissioning fund by over £10 billion. “Past
experience suggests these costs will continue rising.” Mr Pumfrey said
the UK was left with Hinkley’s legacy of nuclear waste for thousands of
years and even after 46 years, nobody yet knew for sure what would happen
to it other than a ‘vague promise’ to bury it in a geological disposal
facility – a site for which had still not been found.

West Somerset Free Press 7th Aug 2022

August 8, 2022 Posted by | decommission reactor, UK | Leave a comment

Sellafield, Britain’s most dangerous building, in the decades-long process of getting its nuclear waste cleaned up.

Britain’s most dangerous building is finally to be made safe after
engineers began removing nuclear waste from an ageing silo left over from
the arms race of the Cold War. Sellafield, at the edge of the Lake District
in Cumbria, has taken the first steps in a project described as the nuclear
industry’s equivalent of putting a man on the moon.

It has spent the past
two decades searching for a solution to the seemingly intractable problem
of cleaning up 10,000 cubic metres of radioactive sludge housed inside a
concrete silo. Known as Magnox, the silo was built in the late 1950s to
receive waste from Britain’s atomic weapons development programme, as
well as its growing fleet of nuclear reactors.

Today it holds roughly 80
per cent of all of Britain’s nuclear waste. For decades the waste has
been dissolving into a highly dangerous and potentially explosive mix
within a building no longer fit for purpose, leading to it being described
as the “most hazardous building in western Europe” – a description
Sellafield itself uses.

In 2005 a leak containing 20 metric tons of uranium
and 160kg of plutonium was discovered to have escaped from one of the
containers. The Office for Nuclear Regulation, the public watchdog, has
designated the building “an intolerable risk”.

This week, the plant
removed the first batch of waste from one of the silo’s 22 compartments
using a robotic arm specially designed for the task. The radioactive
material is then encased in cement, immobilising it to prevent any leakage,
and placed inside a metal container designed to store it permanently. The
project, which has been 20 years in the making and will take an estimated
further 20 years to complete, costs roughly £2 billion a year. Phil
Hallington, head of policy at Sellafield, described the project as the
nuclear industry’s equivalent of putting a man on the moon.

 Times 16th June 2022

June 18, 2022 Posted by | decommission reactor, UK | Leave a comment

Palisades atomic reactor’s shutdown for good, leaving high risk radioactive wastes

No More Risk of Reactor Core Meltdown, No More Radioactive Waste Generation, but Significant Waste and Contamination Risks Continue

Beyond Nuclear, Kevin Kamps, COVERT TOWNSHIP, MI and TAKOMA PARK, MD, MAY 21, 2022–“We are thankful that Palisades shut down before it melted down. The 51-year old atomic reactor has the worst embrittled reactor pressure vessel in the U.S., which was at increasing risk of catastrophic failure due to pressurized thermal shock. To accommodate Palisades’ operation, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) simply weakened and rolled back the safety standards, multiple times over decades. Palisades also has a severely degraded reactor lid, and worn out steam generators that needed replacement for the second time in the reactor’s history. All three were major pathways to core meltdown, which an NRC commissioned report, CRAC-2 (short for Calculation of Reactor Accident Consequences, also known as the 1982 Sandia Siting Study or as NUREG/CR-2239) estimated would have caused a thousand peak early fatalities (acute radiation poisoning deaths), 7,000 peak early radiation injuries, 10,000 peak cancer deaths (latent cancer fatalities), and $52.6 billion in property damage. When adjusted for inflation alone, property damages would have surmounted $150 billion in Year 2021 dollar figures.  

And as Associated Press investigative reporter Jeff Donn wrote in his four-part series “Aging Nukes,” shortly after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear catastrophe began in Japan in 2011, populations have soared around U.S. atomic reactors, so casualties would now be even higher. Donn cited reactor pressure vessel embrittlement and pressurized thermal shock risk as the top example of NRC regulatory retreat. Thank goodness no such nuclear nightmare unfolded at Palisades during its operations, but Consumers Energy (from 1971 to 2007) and Entergy (from 2007 to 2022) were willing to take those risks on the shoreline of the Great Lakes, drinking water supply for more than 40 million people in eight U.S. states, two Canadian provinces, and a very large number of Native American First Nations downstream and downwind, as well as up the food chain. Now, by definition, once the irradiated nuclear fuel is removed from the core, a reactor meltdown cannot happen at Palisades.

But the likely more than 700 metric tons of forever deadly irradiated (euphemistically called spent or used) nuclear fuel, containing more than 1,800 pressurized water reactor assemblies, and comprising more than 150 million curies of hazardous radioactivity, still represent a very significant risk. The vast majority is still stored in the indoor wet storage pool, at risk of a loss of cooling water leading to a catastrophic radioactivity release to the environment. While transfer of irradiated nuclear fuel into dry cask storage represents an increase in safety, it involves the movement of very heavy loads over the pool, and must be done very carefully. In October 2005, a 107-ton transfer cask containing irradiated nuclear fuel dangerously dangled over the pool for two days, and was nearly dropped from its crane by operator error. Had that happened, the ensuing pool fire could have dwarfed even CRAC-II’s casualties and property damage figures cited above, as Palisades’ pool is not even located in a radiological containment structure. Recently, in its careless rush job to empty a storage pool, Holtec, which plans to takeover at Palisades by the end of June, with NRC’s complicit rubber-stamp, caused a radioactive water spill that doused and dosed a worker at its Oyster Creek, New Jersey decommissioning project. In 2018, Holtec’s flawed dry cask storage design at San Onofre, California nearly caused a 50-ton loaded canister to fall nearly 20-feet. For these and many other reasons, Beyond Nuclear, Don’t Waste Michigan, and Michigan Safe Energy Future have legally challenged Holtec’s takeover of Palisades. But the NRC has refused for 15 months to grant us our day in court. We do call for expedited transfer of irradiated nuclear fuel out of the vulnerable pool, but not into Holtec’s dubious and defective dry casks, but rather into safe and secure Hardened On-Site Storage, in order to protect health and environment for the decades the irradiated nuclear fuel will likely be stuck at Palisades with nowhere to go. But Palisades’ shutdown for good means no more high-level radioactive waste will be generated there, which is a very good thing.

Due to all the risks above, Governor Whitmer and Energy Secretary Granholm’s unwise last-second scheme to bail out Palisades with many hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money, and keep it operating for nine more years, must be stopped. So too is Holtec CEO Krishna Singh’s bait and switch to construct and operate a so-called Small Modular (Nuclear) Reactor at the Palisades site an outrageous, high-risk non-starter.

It is now time to safeguard and secure the high-level radioactive waste stored on-site, to clean up the widespread radioactive contamination of the property before it further threatens Lake Michigan and adjacent groundwater aquifers, and to carry out a just transition for the workforce and host region, into the long overdue clean, safe, and affordable renewable and efficient energy system of the future.”e a so-called Small Modular (Nuclear) Reactor at the Palisades site an outrageous, high-risk non-starter.

May 30, 2022 Posted by | decommission reactor, USA | Leave a comment