First civil nuclear site decommissioned in the UK
It took 10 years for Veolia and Imperial College London to complete the
decommissioning of the first civil nuclear site in the UK. The Reactor
Centre at Imperial’s Silwood Park eco-campus in Ascot housed the UK’s
last civilian nuclear reactor for almost 50 years until it closed in 2012.
The long and complex project required demolition of the reactor, safely
managing hazardous materials, and restoring the site to its original state
to make it safe for public use. Veolia’s specialist decommissioning team,
KDC, supported Imperial in planning the complex project, which included the
cutting operations to reduce the reactor concrete shielding, removal and
demolition of the facility. The operation required the design and use of
new equipment to safely deconstruct the facility.
Construction Management 1st Oct 2024,
https://constructionmanagement.co.uk/first-civil-nuclear-site-decommissioned-in-the-uk/
Nuclear plant’s decommissioning could take 95 years
Daniel Mumby, Local Democracy Reporting Service, 19 Sept 24, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8699v4dvexo
Residents are being asked for their views on how a former nuclear power station should be safely decommissioned.
The Hinkley Point B facility, which lies on the Somerset coast north of Stogursey, ceased operations in August 2022, after cracks developed in the plant’s graphite cores, creating potential safety concerns.
EDF Energy, which owns the facility, has applied to the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) for formal permission to decommission the site, which could take about 95 years.
Somerset residents now have three months to voice their views.
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, according to the Local Democracy Reporting Service.
While physical activity within the site will be minimal during this phase, the former power station will remain under close surveillance with “periodic maintenance interventions” to prevent any risk to health or national security.
The third and final phase will see the former reactor and debris vaults being dismantled and removed and any final landscaping work being completed – with EDF estimating that this will be finished by 2118.
The consultation is running until 9 December, with the ONR expected to publish its formal response in early 2025.
Hinkley Point C
EDF is currently building Hinkley Point C, which has a target completion date of June 2027.
Costing about £46bn, it is expected to generate enough electricity to supply some six million homes for the next 60 years.
More than 200 Russian nuclear submarines have been dismantled.
Rosatom has said that its work to resolve nuclear legacy issues in
Russia’s Far East has been successful, including the dismantling of dozens
of decommissioned nuclear-powered submarines. In total, the state nuclear
corporation said, 202 Russian nuclear-powered submarines decommissioned
before 2022 have been dismantled, including 82 from the country’s Far East.
It added that all used nuclear fuel has been removed from the region. The
reactor compartments of the dismantled nuclear submarines have been placed
in specially constructed containers in a secure site on land, and are
subject to radiation monitoring and maintenance, such as checking the
condition of the anti-corrosion protective coating, the company said.
World Nuclear News 11th Sept 2024
Hinkley Point B: What happens after a nuclear power station stops making electricity?
After shutting down in 2022, the job now is to carefully
remove tonnes of nuclear waste to be transported for storage at Sellafield
in Cumbria. The team is halfway through that task with one reactor empty
and one more to go.
I was given exclusive access to the power station,
getting the chance to travel deep within the bowels of the building and see
something few people outside EDF Energy get to – the cooling ponds, where
spent fuel is cooled down before being sealed for transport and storage.
there will be another couple of years to finish defuelling operations, then
EDF hands this place over to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority as the
painstaking job of decommissioning will continue for many years.
ITV 13th Aug 2024
Germany may take another 50 years to find final repository for waste from shuttered nuclear power
Sören Amelang, Aug 9, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/germany-may-take-another-50-years-to-find-final-repository-for-waste-from-shuttered-nuclear-power/
Germany’s ongoing hunt for a final repository for highly radioactive nuclear waste could last until the 2070s, a report has warned.
The report by the Institute for Applied Ecology (Öko-Institut), which was commissioned by the country’s Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management (BASE), said a decision on a location can be expected in 2074 at the earliest under ideal conditions, reports Zeit Online.
This would be more than 40 years later than the original 2031 target, which the government already gave up almost two years ago. The environment ministry said the report did not take into consideration significant progress in efforts to shorten the search, for example by saving time on long exploration periods.
The ministry declared in November 2022 that the search won’t be completed in 2031, following a paper by the Federal Company for Radioactive Waste Disposal (BGE) that estimated the search could take until 2046 or, in another scenario, until 2068.
The next step will be for the BGE to propose shortlisted siting regions at the end of 2027, the ministry said. “This is the right time to discuss and regulate further acceleration in a transparent manner. A great deal of time can be saved, particularly in the surface and underground exploration,” it added.
But Journalist Bernward Janzing wrote in a commentary it was questionable how much the “scientifically well designed” process can be accelerated without compromising high safety standards.
Germany completed its nuclear phase-out last year and will now have to store 1,900 large containers, or around 28,100 cubic metres (m3), of high-level radioactive waste by 2080, when all its nuclear power stations and many research facilities will have been finally decommissioned and the fuel elements treated at other facilities.
Highly radioactive, heat-generating waste accounts for only five percent of Germany’s radioactive refuse, but is responsible for 99 percent of the radiation. It is currently held at temporary storage facilities near decommissioned nuclear power stations and in central interim repositories.
Construction of a repository following a location decision is scheduled to take about 20 years, according to current plans. The process of transporting and storing thousands of casks in the final repository will then take decades more.
Experts from a parliamentary storage commission said that loading and sealing the repository could be expected to last “well into the next century”.
Radiation levels assessed for on-site burial plan at old nuclear power station
Demolition and disposal is due to start in 2030
Andrew Forgrave, 14 July 2024 https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/radiation-levels-assessed-site-burial-29523489
Potential radiation levels arising from the next-stage decommissioning of a former nuclear power station have been assessed as within safety thresholds. Magnox, owner of the Trawsfynydd site in Gwynedd, is aiming to demolish and infill the site’s ponds complex before capping it with concrete.
In two scenarios – for future site occupiers and for some local wildlife – the UK’s Nuclear Restoration Services (NRS) said dosages could exceed safe levels. But the company said its own assessments were cautious and under criteria set by Natural Resources Wales (NRW) all safety thresholds were met.
Trawsfynydd stopped generating electricity in 1991 after operating for 26 years. Years of demolition and on-site disposal are planned. The reactor buildings are scheduled for completion by 2055 with final site clearance activities ending by 2070. The site will then be released from radioactive substances regulation “some time after that”.
First to be tackled will be the ponds complex – a set of buildings running alongside the site’s two reactor buildings. This is due for demolition in 2030 and this could take up to two years.
For this Magnox needs to amend its environmental permit and has applied to NRW for permission. A four-week public consultation was launched this week.
Martin Cox, NRW’s head of operations for northwest Wales, said: “We understand this permit variation is of particular interest to the public and local community. As the regulator for this application we are committed to keeping the community and environment healthy.
We must be satisfied the proposed demolition, disposal, and capping is done in ways that are safe and meet our standards for the protection of people and the environment while allowing the site to be released from radioactive substances regulation in the future.”
The ponds complex contains concrete pools formerly used to cool and store used nuclear fuel before it was sent to Sellafield in Cumbria for reprocessing. This process ended in 1997 and 99.9% of all radioactive waste has been removed from the site.
Below the ponds and storage vaults are box-like structures capable of storing about 5,000 cubic metres of material, which is twice the volume of an Olympic-sized swimming pool. The plan is to fill these with “slightly radioactive” broken concrete from the demolished structures above them.
Magnox has submitted a “site-wide environmental safety case”, supported by more than 30 technical reports, to NRW. One includes radioactivity estimates by NRS for the ponds complex spanning four scenarios: natural evolution, human intrusion, site occupancy, and environmental impact.
Dosage levels for “inadvertent” human intrusion were found to meet safety thresholds “in all credible scenarios”. Screening criteria was also met for wildlife and plants in the surrounding area apart from the uppermost stretch of Afon Tafarn-helyg, a tributary of the Afon Dwyryd. Magnox noted its criteria was stricter that NRW’s under which the threshold would be met.
For site occupiers Magnox said a few features, just below ground, might breach its safety guidelines but not NRW’s. It added: “This exceedance is for a configuration that cautiously assumes a 0.15 m (minimum) cap thickness. Moreover such worst-case dose rates would be expected to drop below 0.017 mSv/year after around 100 years beyond the assumed end-state date (2083) and the probability of receiving such a dose is expected to be low.”
In any case radioactivity estimates are expected to decrease prior to demolition as further decommissioning continues. Additional borehole investigations are being conducted this year beneath the ponds complex to get a better understanding of groundwater flows. NRS added: “In short, the proposed disposals will be safe while they are being implemented, for the decades while the site remains under regulatory control, and then afterwards into the indefinite future.”
When considering Magnox’s bid for a permit variation to allow on-site disposal at Trawsfynydd NRW will be consulting with experts in Public Health Wales and the Office of Nuclear Regulation. The process is expected to be “lengthy”.
You can take part in the consultation, and view related documents, here.
No nuke waste down under: Nuclear Free Local Authorities spokesperson receives assurance MOD still committed to decommissioning British nuclear subs at home
Nuclear Free Local Authorities, 4 June 24
Defence chiefs have written to the NFLA Spokesperson on Nuclear Submarine Decommissioning reassuring him that ‘the Ministry of Defence remains committed to disposing its decommissioned submarines, including the waste they produce, within the UK’.
Councillor Brian Goodall, who represents the Rosyth Ward in Scotland where decommissioning is currently taking place, wrote to the outgoing Defence and Foreign Secretaries on 17 May seeking their assurance that redundant British nuclear submarines will not be sent to Australia for disposal.
In Australia, in relation to the AUKUS defence pact, legislators have proposed a new Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2024, which appears to provide under Clauses 7 and 12 of the Bill for the disposal of high level radioactive waste from British and American submarines on Australian soil, and also for the storage of such materials in Australia from ‘a submarine that is not complete (for example, because it is being constructed or disposed of)’.
Councillor Goodall is concerned that this could theoretically mean the British Government ‘permitting towing redundant UK boats from Rosyth and Devonport down under for disposal’. Councillor Goodall fears that, were this to become practice and not just theory, local expertise and the jobs of his constituents could be lost.
In their response, defence officials say they continue to work on completing the decommissioning of the submarine Swiftsure at Rosyth by 2026 ‘by adopting a unique approach that will maximise the amount of the submarine that can be recycled and minimise the amount of waste that needs to be disposed of’. Radioactive waste will be taken to Capenhurst, Cheshire for interim storage until a Geological Disposal Facility is completed for its eventual disposal. This includes the reactor from each dismantled submarine.
Knowledge acquired as a result of the submarine decommissioning work will be shared by the MOD with Australia.
The letter sent to Lord Cameron and Grant Shapps on 17 May read:……………………………………………………… more https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/no-nuke-waste-down-under-nflas-spokesperson-receives-assurance-mod-still-committed-to-decommissioning-british-nuclear-subs-at-home/
Dounreay & Scottish Nuclear Policy
Allan Dorans , SNP MP for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock:
Workers at the Dounreay nuclear power complex on Scotland’s north coast plan strike action
next month which will further delay the decommissioning of a plant which
started operating in 1955.
The Prospect, Unite and GMB unions are all
involved. The GMB, the main union for nuclear energy workers, champions
alongside Scottish Labour proposals for new nuclear power stations in
Scotland, despite widespread public opposition to them. The union also
helps to fund Labour candidates.
While it is always disturbing to hear of
industrial conflict at a nuclear plant, these strikes will in reality,
relatively speaking, make little difference to the decommissioning process.
Why? Decommissioning began in 2019 and the plan envisages taking 50-60
years to complete.
But “complete” doesn’t mean the same to the company
responsible for the clean-up and demolition of Dounreay, Magnox Ltd, what
it means to most of us, and the site will be under surveillance – ie, not
usable – for at least 300 years. Leaving aside for the moment the appalling
financial costs of nuclear decommissioning, rarely mentioned in Scottish
Labour’s campaign material, what about the costs for the local people and
the environment over the last nearly 70 years?
There have been three
significant accidents and countless smaller ones. On May 10, 1977, a
65-metre (213ft) deep shaft at the plant was packed with radioactive waste
with at least 2 kg of sodium and potassium. Seawater flooded in and
reacted violently with the sodium and potassium, blowing the huge steel and
concrete lids off the shaft. The explosion littered the area with
radioactive particles, with around 150 of these being found on the beach in
the following 20 years.
This was, according to the New Statesman in 1995,
the worst nuclear accident ever in the UK. Dounreay was never prosecuted.
Researchers based at Oxford University, reporting – conveniently for some
political forces – in July 2014 revisited earlier studies of the incidence
of leukaemia around Sellafield and Dounreay and concluded that children,
teenagers and young adults currently living close to the facilities were
not at an increased risk of developing cancers.
The researchers, who were
dependent upon UK Government grants for their survival, downplayed two
earlier studies that found a raised risk of leukaemia among 0 to
14-year-olds and 15- to 24-year-olds living within 12.5km of Dounreay
during the period 1979-84. A subsequent study in 1996 reported an excess of
childhood leukaemia and Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (NHL) within 25 km of
Dounreay for the period 1968-93. The researchers do not tell us just how
many cases, how many more children and young adults than expected, had
developed these often-deadly cancers, but 1287 cases near seven nuclear
sites in Scotland were looked at in the second study.
Around Dounreay,
almost twice as many cases as expected were found. The difference was
greatest around Dounreay. If we share the 1287 cases among the seven sites,
we get around 180 cases near Dounreay, of which half or might not have
occurred if the plant had never been built. To, me that’s “significant”
and I feel sure it was for those young people and their families. With
every passing month, it becomes clearer that Scottish Labour must
reconsider their plans for a nuclear Scotland.
The National 29th April 2024
EDF wants public views on plans for Hinkley Point B decommissioning
By John Thorne Wednesday 17th April 2024
ENERGY firm EDF is carrying out a public consultation on its plans for the
decommissioning of Hinkley Point B nuclear power station, a process which
will continue into the 22nd century. The two Hinkley B reactors were shut
down in August, 2022, after 46 years of electricity generation, but will
not be able to be removed until about 2107. EDF has since been removing the
used fuel from the reactors in preparation for the station’s
decommissioning phase, which will involve dismantling and demolishing plant
and buildings on the site. More than half of the spent fuel stringers have
been removed from the first reactor and sent on in flasks for storage in
Sellafield, Cumbria.
West Somerset Free Press 17th April 2024
How much will extra decades of nuclear decommissioning work at Dounreay cost?
By Gordon Calder gordon.calder@hnmedia.co.uk, 28 March 2024
The cost of extending the decommissioning work at Dounreay is expected to
be published in the summer, according to a spokeswoman at the site.
She was responding to questions from the John O’ Groat Journal, following last
week’s announcement that the clean up-operation at the nuclear plant will
continue until the 2070s – almost 40 years longer than the previous date of
2033. The cost of the programme was previously said to be about £2.9
billion.
Asked about the estimated cost of extending the decommissioning,
the spokeswoman said: ” The estimate for delivering the revised lifetime
plan to take the Dounreay site to its interim end point, will form part of
the Nuclear Provision, and be published in the NDA (Nuclear Decommissioning
Authority) 2023/24 annual report in the summer. We are committed to
delivering the Dounreay mission as effectively and efficiently as
possible.”
John O’Groat Journal 28th March 2024
Dounreay decommissioning date ‘never achievable’ says Caithness councillor
CAITHNESS has been misled for the past 20 years over the
timescale for the decommissioning of Dounreay. The work was due to be
completed by 2033 but that target was “never technically practicable” and
“never achievable”, according to Struan Mackie, the chairman of the
Dounreay Stakeholder Group (DSG).
Mr Mackie, a Thurso and Northwest
Caithness Highland councillor, said: “We all know that the publicised
dates, the milestones communicated to our community, to our politicians and
to our supply chain for the last two decades have not been founded in
reality.
John O’Groat Journal 28th March 2024
The San Onofre Briefing: The Latest on SoCal’s Shut Down Nuclear Power Plant
5 Feb 2024
What does it mean for a nuclear plant to be decommissioned? What’s the status of the nuclear waste currently stored on-site at San Onofre? What concerns does the public need to be aware of? Is San Onofre safe? As advocates for a safe and sustainable future for Southern California, SLF is thrilled to present the next edition of our First Fridays Series, “The San Onofre Briefing: The Latest on SoCal’s Shut Down Nuclear Power Plant.” This edition is a comprehensive exploration of the recent developments surrounding the decommissioning of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. Our expert panel – including a retired Admiral of the US Navy and the Former Chair of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission – delves into the current status, environmental impact, and public health implications of the shut-down nuclear site.
Devonport Dockyard nuclear sub dismantling will be hit by delays, new report predicts
Nuclear Information Service expects no quick fix for removal of 15 decommissioned submarines laid up at Devonport
William Telford, Business Editor, 15 Feb 24 Plymouth Live
The dismantling of 15 decommissioned nuclear subs at Devonport Royal Dockyard is likely to hit delays, according to a new report. The briefing document published by the independent Nuclear Information Service says a history of infrastructure work at the Plymouth facility means “delays are more likely to materialise than not”.
The report said upgrades to 14 and 15 Docks and the Submarine Refit Complex at Devonport are overdue and progress on submarine dismantling is “on hold” while the Government focuses on its £298m “demonstrator” project to fully dismantle HMS Swiftsure at Rosyth, forecast to be complete at the end of 2026.
The Ministry of Defence told Plymouth Live it aims to dismantle the nuclear submarines at Devonport “as soon as practicably possible”. It said the Swiftsure project will “inform and refine” the dismantling process for subsequent submarines and provide more certainty on the dismantling schedule for future submarines and remains on schedule for completion by the original target date of 2026.
The Nuclear Information Service’s briefing report on Devonport Royal Dockyard gives an overview of the facility and its role in servicing the UK’s submarine fleet, including its nuclear-armed submarines. The report said: “The 15 out-of-service nuclear submarines stored at Devonport, and a further seven that are at Rosyth, together comprise every nuclear submarine the Navy has ever fielded.
“Aside from the long-overdue upgrades to 14 and 15 Docks, and the Submarine Refit Complex, progress on submarine dismantling is on hold while the Government focuses on its ‘demonstrator’ project to fully dismantle HMS Swiftsure. This work is being undertaken at Rosyth and is currently forecast to be complete at the end of 2026 at a cost of £298m.
“Three more submarines at Rosyth have had low-level waste removed from them, but it is not clear if work to defuel the nine submarines at Devonport that are still carrying nuclear fuel will begin before completion of the demonstrator project.
In 2016 the MoD estimated that fully dismantling 27 submarines would cost £2.4bn. Although the risk to in-service submarine availability from delays to submarine dismantling and defuelling is lower than from delays to the maintenance schedule, the history of problems with the project and with infrastructure work at Devonport suggests that delays are more likely to materialise than not.”…………………………..more https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/plymouth-news/devonport-dockyard-nuclear-sub-dismantling-9098888—
Still no end in sight for Fukushima nuke plant decommissioning work
January 27, 2024 (Mainichi Japan), https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20240127/p2a/00m/0na/003000c
OKUMA, Fukushima — Nearly 13 years since the triple-meltdown following the March 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami, it is still unclear when decommissioning of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station’s reactors will be completed.
Operator Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) Holdings Inc. showed the power plant to Mainichi Shimbun reporters on Jan. 26 ahead of the 13th anniversary of the nuclear accident. Radiation levels in many areas are almost normal, and people can move in ordinary work clothes. However, the most difficult part of the work, retrieving melted nuclear fuel, has been a challenge. The management of solid waste, which is increasing daily, also remains an issue. The decommissioning of the reactors, which is estimated to take up to 40 years, is still far from complete.
Meltdowns occurred in reactor Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The start of nuclear fuel debris removal at reactor No. 2, which had been scheduled to begin by the end of fiscal 2023, has just been postponed for the third time. Reactor buildings are still inaccessible due to high radiation, meaning the work has to be done remotely.
More than 1,000 tanks for storing treated wastewater are lined up next to reactor Nos. 1 through 4, and new facilities to stably store and process approximately 520,000 cubic meters of existing solid waste are being built by reactor Nos. 5 and 6.
Treated wastewater began being discharged into the ocean in 2023, and the tanks are gradually being removed, but there is no timetable for the disposal of the solid waste. A TEPCO representative said, “The final issue that remains is how to deal with the radioactive waste that continues to be produced even as the decommissioning of the plant progresses.”
Japanese original by Yui Takahashi, Lifestyle, Science & Environment News Department)
Shuttering the Nuclear Weapons Sites: There’s Gold in Those Warheads but the Scrap Metal is Radioactive
by Robert Alvarez, Dec 18, 2023, https://washingtonspectator.org/shuttering-the-nuclear-weapons-sites-theres-gold-in-those-warheads-but-the-scrap-metal-is-radioactive/
As one of my first tasks early in the first Clinton Administration as the newly appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, I conducted the first (and only) asset inventory of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). In carrying it out, we departed from the usual reliance on DOE contractors, and established a team of federal employees throughout the DOE complex to scour the system for data. In doing this we saved a lot of money and time that would otherwise be consumed by DOE contractors that had perfected the art of cost maximization.
After six months we briefed Energy Secretary O’Leary on what we found. With real estate holdings of more than 2.4 million acres–an area larger than Rhode Island and Delaware combined–the DOE was the largest government-owned industrial energy supply and research enterprise in the country, responsible for:
- More than 20,700 specialized facilities and buildings, including 5,000 warehouses, 7,000 administrative buildings, 1,600 laboratories, 89 nuclear reactors, 208 particle accelerators, and 665 production and manufacturing facilities.
- More than 130,000 metric tons of chemicals, a quantity roughly equivalent to the annual output of a large chemical manufacturer.
- More than 270,000 metric tons of scrap metal—equivalent to more than two modern aircraft carriers in weight. (The dismantlement of three gaseous diffusion plants will generate about 1.4 million metric tons of additional scrap.)
- More than 17,000 pieces of large industrial equipment.
- More than 40,000 metric tons of base metals and more than 10,000 pounds of precious metals, such as gold, silver, and platinum.
- About 700,000 metric tons of nuclear materials, mostly depleted uranium but also including weapons-grade and fuel-grade plutonium, thorium, and natural and enriched uranium.
- About 320,000 metric tons of stockpiled fuel oil and coal for 67 power plants.
- About 600 million barrels of crude oil stored at the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
- Electrical distribution systems for the Bonneville, Western Area, Southwestern, Southeastern, and Alaska power administrations.
If the Energy Department were a private concern with more than 100,000 employees, it would be one of the nation’s largest and most powerful corporations. And, we determined, if it were privately held, it would be filing for bankruptcy.
Major elements of Energy’s complex were closing down, leaving a huge unfunded and dangerous mess. After more than a half century of making nuclear weapons, the DOE possessed one of the world’s largest inventories of dangerous nuclear materials and it has created several of the most contaminated areas in the Western hemisphere.
We discovered that a significant percentage of overhead expenses at several shuttered sites were from hoarding fungible assets that were no longer needed. The challenge was to empty these warehouses and to generate an income for the U.S. government by selling off valuable excess materials.
Our first effort was aimed at the large amount of uncontaminated precious metals contained in nuclear weapons that would generate millions-of-dollars in revenue from warheads scheduled for dismantlement under the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). For the first time, nuclear disarmament would actually make money for the taxpayer.
We were astounded to find that for decades intact weapons components containing large amounts of precious metals were being disposed at great expense in a classified landfill under heavy guard. It took a direct order from the Secretary for DOE’s PANTEX weapons assembly and dismantlement facility near Amarillo, TX to obtain an industrial scale hydraulic hammer to smash non-nuclear components into little pieces so that the gold and other metals can be recovered without revealing design secrets.
Further complicating the process for dismantling weapons, the DOE had failed to properly maintain its system for assessing and evaluating each nuclear weapon for reliability, aging problems, and safe dismantlement. Known as configuration management (CM), this system is a fundamental element in the control of the nuclear stockpile and is based on careful documentation of “as built” drawings and product definitions made during the design, manufacture, assembly, and deployment of a nuclear weapons.
My staff discovered that DOE could not find nearly 60 percent of the “as built” drawings that document all changes made to active weapons selected for dismantlement. I threw a fit and reported it to the front office, which promptly took action.
Over the ensuing decade, we wound up sending about $50 million from the sale of precious metals extracted from dismantled weapons back to the treasury. As a side benefit, we also set up the DOE’s first electronic recycling center to recover fungible materials from DOE’s huge inventory of excess computers.
After receiving a Secretarial Gold Medal for our asset management program, I became increasingly isolated from the DOE front office, and spent most of my time involved with environment, safety and health problems afflicting the DOE nuclear weapons complex. As soon as Secretary O’Leary departed in late 1996, our asset inventory was buried and barred from public disclosure.
However, I drew the line when it came to the disposition of radiologically contaminated materials, such as the vast amount of scrap metal resulting from the decommissioning of nuclear weapons facilities.
In 1994, I blocked a deal that would have allowed some 10,000 tons of radiation-contaminated nickel from nuclear weapons operations to be recycled into the civilian metal supply, where some percentage of it would inevitably wind up in stainless steel items such as intrauterine devices, surgical tools, children’s orthodontic braces, kitchen sinks, zippers, and flatware. However, that confrontation was not to be the end of the scrap metal gambit.
The pressures to recycle 1.7 million metric tons of contaminated metal scrap (equivalent to 17 U.S. aircraft carriers in weight) at nuclear weapons facilities in Tennessee, Kentucky and Ohio were enormous.
I dug in my heels and opposed an effort, supported by Vice President Gore’s office, to release tens of thousands of tons of radiologically contaminated metals into commerce. By claiming cost savings associated with foregoing landfill disposal, DOE contractors would be able to pocket the profits from the sale of scrap. Going forward however, I was seen as obstructionist and was effectively shunned from decision-making circles.
After Hazel O’Leary left as Energy Secretary in late 1996, I lost my political “air cover” and was perceived in the words of a colleague by the incoming leadership of the agency (Secretary Frederico Pena’s team) as “too radioactive.”
Even though I was being excluded from policy decisions, I still persisted.
As a former environmental activist, I had no compunctions about going outside of the Department to convince an old friend at the Natural Defense Resource Council to file a lawsuit to block the free release of the contaminated metal.
I knew that if DOE and its contractors got their way, this practice would lead to a major public backlash. Not to mention the market impacts the contaminated material would create for the U.S. steel industry, which was almost totally dependent on recycled metal for its feedstock. Steel makers had been burned before by errant radiation sources and the last thing they wanted was for the public to realize that the stainless-steel fork on the dinner table had some plutonium in it from a nuclear weapons plant. But consideration of these consequences could easily get overlooked in the DOE, where decisions were made in isolation and secrecy.
The lawsuit stopped the train temporarily. Judge Gladys Kessler, in a strongly worded opinion, stated: “It is . . . startling and worrisome that from an early point on, there has been no opportunity at all for public scrutiny or input in a matter of such grave importance.” Calling the recycling effort “entirely experimental at this stage,” she concluded, “The potential for environmental harm is great, especially given the unprecedented amount of hazardous materials which the defendants seek to recycle.”
In the summer of 1998, I received a call from the White House indicating that I was being fired within the next 30 days. This was the third time my detractors sought to end my tenure as a senior political appointee in DOE’s Policy office. This time, it seemed to be final.
A week before my departure, I was summoned to meet with Bill Richarson – the newly installed Secretary of Energy. He was slouched on the sofa and disheveled after a long day. “I don’t know why you got on the list. You must have pissed-off quite a few people,” he said with a devilish smile. “But you have a lot of folks that want to keep you around. When I visited DOE sites, members of Congress, union officials, Indian tribes, and environmental activists, would ask me about this Alvarez guy.”
He then pulled out a news clipping from the Seattle Times about a walk-out staged by the members of a DOE advisory panel at the Hanford facility in protest to my sacking. “You must be a fighter, I like fighters,” he said approvingly. Richardson reversed the White House decision and appointed me as his Senior Policy Advisor, where I was tasked among other things to end the “hot scrap” recycling scam.
A senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, Robert Alvarez served as senior policy adviser to the Energy Department’s secretary and deputy assistant secretary for national security and the environment from 1993 to 1999.
1 This Month
5 January -Webinar-What is Trump’s Golden Dome?
REGISTER AT Massachusetts Peace Action Education
New book – https://www.amazon.com/dp/1923372157?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- December 2025 (346)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
- January 2025 (250)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 