nuclear-news

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

Louth and Horncastle MP welcomes council pulling out of nuclear waste site partnership

By Andy Hubbert

Louth and Horncastle’s MP, Victoria Atkins has welcomed news that
Lincolnshire County Council’s Leader, Coun Martin Hill is minded to pull
the authority out of a community partnership group overseeing proposals for
a nuclear waste facility. By pulling out of the Nuclear Waste Services’
Community Partnership, the council would effectively cancel the company’s
consideration of the Lincolnshire coast for a Geological Disposal Facility
(GDF) for deep burial of nuclear waste, after NWS announced that their area
of focus had changed to an area of open land between Gayton le Marsh and
Great Carlton, between Louth and Mablethorpe.

 Lincolnshire World 19th March 2025 https://www.lincolnshireworld.com/news/politics/louth-and-horncastle-mp-welcomes-council-pulling-out-of-nuclear-waste-site-partnership-5041035

March 22, 2025 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Dismantling work begins at Hamaoka nuclear plant

The start of the dismantling work signifies that the so-called “great era of decommissioning” has begun in earnest in Japan. 

While Japan has entered an era of decommissioning, decommissioning plans continue to be postponed due to the lack of a finalized waste disposal site.

By FUMI YADA/ Staff Writer, March 17, 2025,  https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/15671904?fbclid=IwY2xjawJHQ-9leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHcLLRpjB5amZOZL-8qR613ATPjVA-r1TzUbw_ezeLkSwaBkwhCZVpLnMlw_aem_9niHHKoB8JXLoduuhcoh2Q

Dismantling work has begun at Chubu Electric Power Co.’s Hamaoka nuclear power plant in Omaezaki, Shizuoka Prefecture, the first time a commercial reactor in Japan is being dismantled.

On March 17, a crane was used to lift and remove the top lid of the No. 2 reactor pressure vessel, which contained nuclear fuel during its operation.

The start of the dismantling work signifies that the so-called “great era of decommissioning” has begun in earnest in Japan. 

The No. 1 and No. 2 reactors at the Hamaoka plant are both boiling water reactors.

The No. 1 reactor began operation in 1976 with an output of 540,000 kW, and the No. 2 reactor went online in 1978 with an output of 840,000 kW.

After the earthquake resistance guidelines for nuclear power plants were revised in 2006, Chubu Electric Power Co. decided to decommission both reactors in 2008 due to the high cost of seismic reinforcement and other necessary measures.

Work began in 2009.

So far, spent nuclear fuel in the building has been removed to the fuel pools of No. 4 and No. 5 reactors, which are located on the same site, and unused fuel has been taken off site.

Decontamination of equipment has been carried out, and since fiscal 2015, dismantling of the turbines, generators and part of the reactor building has also been under way.

The dismantling of the reactor, which began on March 17, is considered the main part of the decommissioning work.

The reactor pressure vessel and internal reactor structures have high radiation levels that make them inaccessible to humans.

The work will be carried out by remote control using specialized robots, which requires advanced technology.

Chubu Electric Power Co. will dismantle the No. 1 and No. 2 reactors over a period of about 12 years, starting with the No. 2 reactor first.

The decommissioning of the two reactors is expected to be completed in fiscal 2042 after the buildings are finally dismantled.

Chubu Electric estimates that the decommissioning of No. 1 reactor will cost about 37.9 billion yen ($254.4 million) and about 46.2 billion yen for the No. 2 reactor.

However, the company has not yet decided where to dispose of the large amount of metal, concrete and other waste materials generated by the decommissioning work.

In Japan, the Japan Atomic Energy Agency has decommissioned a small experimental reactor, but no commercial reactors have been decommissioned yet.

At present, 18 nuclear power plants, excluding Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, are scheduled to be decommissioned.

Many other reactors in Japan have been in operation for a long time.

While Japan has entered an era of decommissioning, decommissioning plans continue to be postponed due to the lack of a finalized waste disposal site.

March 21, 2025 Posted by | decommission reactor, Japan | Leave a comment

Questions asked in Cumberland on two key nuke dump concerns

 Green Councillor Jill Perry kindly asked questions of senior Labour
Councillors at the most recent meeting of Cumberland Council relating to
two key concerns relating to any possible location of a Geological Disposal
Facility (nuclear waste dump) in Cumbria.

These concerns relate to the
future flooding and flood defences of any site and making all parties
engaged in property transactions aware of the possibility of a GDF and the
discretionary ‘Property Value Protection Scheme’ launched last year by
Nuclear Waste Services.

The NFLAs raised these issues – and others
relating to housing demand and provision – with Cllr Perry and we are
grateful for her support in asking these questions of the Council Leader
and an Executive member. The NFLAs have been highly critical of the NWS
compensation scheme and raised our concerns over historic instances of
flooding at Millom and Haverigg in a recent letter to NWS and the Chair of
the South Copeland GDF Search Area.

 NFLA 19th March 2025, https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/questions-asked-in-cumberland-on-two-key-nuke-dump-concerns/

March 21, 2025 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Engie Finalises Agreement To Extend Operation Of Two Belgium Nuclear Plants

By David Dalton, 18 March 2025, Nucnet

Transfer of waste liabilities reduces company’s exposure to future costs

French energy group Engie has formalised a 10-year extension of the Doel-4 and Tihange-3 nuclear power plants in Belgium in partnership with the Belgian state.

The announcement follows approval of the agreement from the European Commission in February and consolidated a preliminary agreement signed two years earlier between the company and Belgian authorities.

The deal includes transferring financial responsibility for nuclear waste and spent fuel, a significant financial issue for both parties. A first tranche of the associated payment has already been made to Engie, with a second due upon reactor restart, scheduled for next November.

Engie said the transfer of all nuclear waste liabilities to the Belgian government means it will no longer be exposed to future waste treatment costs………………..https://www.nucnet.org/news/engie-finalises-agreement-to-extend-operation-of-two-belgium-nuclear-plants-3-2-2025

March 20, 2025 Posted by | EUROPE, politics, wastes | Leave a comment

County council set to withdraw from nuclear waste facility group

Lincolnshire County Council leader announces intention to withdraw from
Nuclear Waste Services’ Community Partnership. This would effectively
cancel the company’s consideration of the Lincolnshire coast for a
Geological Disposal Facility (GDF).

Cllr Martin Hill OBE, leader of
Lincolnshire County Council, said: “When we took up Nuclear Waste
Services’ (NWS, then called ‘Radioactive Waste Management’)
invitation to join a working group in 2021, we did so with an open mind,
knowing that residents themselves could make the decision as to whether it
was right for the area. “We wanted residents to be able to understand the
full extent of the opportunities and consequences that would come with the
building of a GDF in Lincolnshire.

“At that time, the site earmarked for
the development was an old gas terminal in Theddlethorpe – a brownfield
site. Since then, the area that NWS is considering for the entry point to
the GDF has shifted to open farmland, a couple of miles up the coast and
further inland. “This changes the very nature of the proposal and,
understandably, raised further concerns within the local community.

“Whilst we have tried to maintain an open mind towards the plans, we are
now several years on from this first being suggested, and big questions
still remain to be answered about the scale of the development and how this
waste would get there. “We had planned to put the decision on whether to
remain within the partnership to a public vote next year, but it has become
increasingly apparent that the community is getting frustrated with the
uncertainty and slow pace of this process.

“Unless NWS can provide
significant further details about their plans that would reassure the local
community and comprehensively explain the benefits and costs, it is my
intention to withdraw from the process altogether. “This will need to be
a formal decision, taken at a meeting of the council’s Executive.

 Lincolnshire County Council 18th March 2025, https://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/news/article/2293/county-council-set-to-withdraw-from-nuclear-waste-facility-group

March 20, 2025 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

“South Copeland Community Partnership Area of Focus” on nuclear waste is unravelling 

 The area is narrowing down to …surprise surprise the exact same spot as
the failed nuclear dump in the 1990s. NIREX was the forerunner of Nuclear
Waste Services and their plan for a Rock Characterisation Facility aka a
Trojan Horse for a full blown nuclear dump for low and intermediate level
wastes was refused as being far too dangerous.

That was at Longlands Farm, Gosforth which is now the Wasdale Mountain Rescue Centre – a far better outcome for the land than a nuclear dump. So what is the state of play now?

There are three Areas of Focus two in Cumbria and one in Lincolnshire. In
Cumbria one of the two Areas of Focus, the so-called “South Copeland
Community Partnership Area of Focus” is unravelling with communities
within the area increasingly saying no to the plan.

A ‘willing’ community is the cornerstone of government’s drive to find a Geological
Disposal Facility aka nuclear dump. Simon Hughes, Nuclear Waste Services
Head of Siting, has stated, “The policy surrounding our search for a safe
and suitable location for a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) in the UK is
emphatic. It requires the express consent of the people who would be living
alongside a GDF, and gives them influence over the pace at which
discussions progress.”

Residents in the two areas of South Copeland who
will be living alongside the focus area, i.e. Kirksanton and Bank Head
housing estate, have resoundingly said they are NOT a willing community. In
2023 Whicham Parish Council surveyed their residents and found 76% were
opposed to a GDF being sited there. Now, the other area most affected, Bank
Head housing estate near HMP Haverigg, have also rejected the idea and are
asking Millom Town Council, Cumberland Council and their MP Michelle
Scrogham, for help to stop it. After meeting their MP, residents of Bank
Head conducted the survey at her suggestion – Millom Town Council have
refused to conduct a similar survey, so residents took it into their own
hands. With a return rate of 68.3%, 78.7% have said no to a GDF, 11.7% yes
and 5.2% don’t know.”

 Radiation Free Lakeland 19th March 2025, https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2025/03/19/pin-the-tail-on-the-nuclear-donkey/

March 20, 2025 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Red light for the greenway

A wildlife corridor plans to connect two Superfund sites at the former Rocky Flats plutonium plant and the Rocky Mountain Arsenal that once produced chemical weapons. Locals fear residual contamination could spread.

 John Abbotts, March 14, 2025,  https://thebulletin.org/2025/03/red-light-for-the-greenway-locals-oppose-wildlife-corridor-at-plutonium-contaminated-rocky-flats-site/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Plutonium-contaminated%20wildlife%20corridor%3F%20Colorado%20locals%20say%20no&utm_campaign=20250317%20Monday%20Newsletter

n September, the city council of Westminster, Colorado voted not to fund a pedestrian bridge and underpass at the Rocky Flats site due to concerns about residual soil contamination from plutonium and other hazardous materials. In the process, the city council withdrew about $200,000 in financial support for the development of the project, known as the Rocky Mountain Greenway.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service proposed the greenway to connect wildlife refuges at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal through hiking trails via the Two Ponds refuge to Rocky Flats, with plans to eventually connect to the Rocky Mountain National Park. But the plan is controversial: Both Rocky Flats and the Arsenal are still on the US Environmental Protection Agency’s National Priorities List, identified since 1987 as “Superfund” cleanup sites that contain residual contamination.

The US Army established the Arsenal to produce chemical weapons to support World War II efforts, and in the 1990s, the federal government leased part of the Arsenal to Shell Chemical Co. to manufacture fertilizer and pesticides. In 1952, the Atomic Energy Commission began operations at Rocky Flats as a federal atomic weapons facility, producing plutonium triggers for hydrogen bombs. (A hydrogen bomb or H-bomb uses fission in the primary—uranium or plutonium—to trigger the secondary into a fusion reaction that combines two atomic nuclei to form a single heavier nucleus, releasing a much larger amount of energy.) Operations started largely in secret at Rocky Flats, located in a sparsely populated area 16 miles upwind and upslope of the city of Denver. But in the late 1970s, the public became more informed about plant operations, and the movement opposing atomic weapons began to focus on the facility, organizing protests and civil disobedience actions.

By the late 1980s, when the federal cleanup program at both sites had been initiated, work had already begun on the new Denver International Airport on Rocky Mountain Arsenal lands, and the Denver suburbs had steadily spread west toward Rocky Flats. Accordingly, there was consensus at each site that expedited cleanup would most effectively protect the metropolitan area, and cleanup standards were looser than “unrestricted use” to develop national wildlife refuges at each site. The consequences were residual contamination, especially at Rocky Flats, where there was no limit on how much plutonium remained below six feet of soil in an industrial area fenced off from the public and with the surrounding land converted to a wildlife refuge. This “cleanup on the cheap” at Rocky Flats, plus a record of cover-ups of accidents at the site, created continuing distrust and controversy over post-remediation uses near Rocky Flats. Cities and citizens opposed different proposals for re-use, even over the issue of public access to the refuge. Now there are concerns that the proposed greenway—a trail between the two tracts—may facilitate cross-contamination, taking radioactive material from the Rocky Flats site to the chemically hazardous Arsenal property, and vice versa.

Contamination—then a raid

Each of the two Rocky Mountain sites has a controversial history. At Rocky Mountain Arsenal, chemical contaminants have been identified as organochlorine pesticides, akin to DDT and its chemical cousins, of which Rachel Carson warned in her classic 1962 book Silent Spring. Other contaminants at the site include heavy metals, organophosphate, and carbamate pesticides—with each of these pesticide classes known to be neurotoxic—along with a potpourri of other chemical contaminants in groundwater.

As for Rocky Flats, a 1972 paper from radiochemist Edward Martell and one of his colleagues at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado reported that just east of the site boundary levels of radioactive plutonium 239 and americium 241 ranged “up to hundreds of times that from nuclear tests.” In 1969, a highly visible fire at the site’s plutonium processing facility sparked off-site monitoring; at the time, the fire was assumed to be the source of the detected contamination. Later, the Atomic Energy Commission was forced to admit that a 1957 fire in a separate plutonium recovery building or leaks from drums containing plutonium-contaminated waste were more likely the source of off-site soil contamination.

When the Rocky Flats facility was still operating, it accepted contaminated metal from another Atomic Energy Commission facility. In the process of treating and burying the waste, Rocky Flats released tritium into a nearby stream, contaminating the drinking water source for the city and county of Broomfield, five miles west of the facility. The contamination occurred for more than a decade leading up to 1970; the tritium remained undetected until 1973.

In 1986, amendments to Superfund legislation expanded the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to oversee the cleanup of contaminated federal facilities. The following year, the agency designated Rocky Mountain Arsenal as a Superfund site.

Then, in June 1989, the FBI and EPA raided the Rocky Flats plant in response to allegations of multiple environmental crimes at the site. After an investigation, plutonium production ended, the EPA designated Rocky Flats a Superfund site in the same year. In 1992, Rockwell International, the contractor in charge of managing the site, pleaded guilty to environmental crimes and paid a fine of $18.5 million.

Contested cleanup plans

The regulatory agencies responsible for environmental cleanup—the EPA’s Region 8 office, based in Denver, and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment—have certified cleanup as partially complete at each site. The “responsible parties” are now the US Army for the Arsenal and the US Department of Energy for Rocky Flats.

At the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, cleanup extended to 10 feet below the surface, considered a sufficient depth to prevent burrowing animals from spreading the widespread chemical contamination there. In 2010, the regulatory agencies determined parts of the Arsenal sufficiently remediated to serve as a National Wildlife Refuge and transferred the management of the designated property to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. That service transferred a small herd of bison from a national range in Montana, and bison continue to inhabit the refuge.

The Army retains responsibility for a central area, along with smaller contaminated locations covered for monitoring and groundwater remediation. In 2019, the Colorado Department of Public Health sued Shell and the Army in the US District Court for hazardous chemicals from the Arsenal leaking into groundwater. The suit alleged that unsafe levels of organochlorine pesticides, heavy metals, chlorinated and aromatic solvents, and chemical agent degradation products and manufacturing byproducts had been found in groundwater. Litigation on that case is still ongoing.

At Rocky Flats, the controversy over the site’s past activities extended into its cleanup, with some opponents characterizing the proposed plans as “bait-and-switch.” Early in the cleanup process, the Energy Department funded an advisory committee that, in turn, established a “future site uses” working group. One of the working group’s recommendations was for residual plutonium contamination to be cleaned down to background level, to protect future area residents, no matter how long it would take. However, state officials assessed that a speedy cleanup that converted some areas into a National Wildlife Refuge was the desirable approach to protect outer metropolitan areas expanding toward the site boundaries.

The Energy Department and the site’s federal and state regulators agreed to limit the total costs of remediation and established a residual plutonium contamination limit in the top three feet of soil and a higher limit between three and six feet. (There was no contamination limit below six feet.) These limits were sufficient to qualify outer areas of Rocky Flats as a National Wildlife Refuge, and those areas were released to the Fish and Wildlife Service in 2006. Since then, the controversy has remained because the residual contamination is too high for unlimited uses of Rocky Flats.

Opposing the greenway

The city of Westminster is now the third municipal government to express concern over residual contamination at Rocky Flats. In 2016, the town of Superior, north of the site, voted to withdraw from the Rocky Mountain Greenway, a Federal Lands Access Program grant and project. The city and county of Broomfield followed suit in October 2020, unanimously approving a resolution for the withdrawal from the greenway. The Broomfield city council hired an environmental consultant to conduct soil sampling along the proposed Greenway, and the resolution expressed concern over the high levels of plutonium detected in the soil. After the resolution, the city stated that it would not contribute the $105,000 that was supposed to go to the Greenway project and would not allow Greenway-related construction work on Broomfield property.

The city of Broomfield also opposed another post-cleanup proposal—the Jefferson Parkway Highway Authority—described on its web page as a “privately-funded, publicly-owned regional toll road.” The proposed road would pass just outside the wildlife refuge, which was the eastern boundary of the former plutonium facility. The parkway authority had no plans to sample soil nearby until both Broomfield and a citizens advisory board recommended doing so before construction began. The authority then started sampling and, in September 2019, reported a sample containing 264 picocuries of plutonium per gram. (A picocurie is one trillionth of a curie, a measure of radioactivity.) This was much higher than the maximum limit of 50 picocuries per gram for surface contamination within the former industrial zone. Although this was the only sample above the limit, given the authority’s earlier resistance to sampling, the community lost faith in the project’s safety.

The Broomfield city council voted unanimously in February 2020 to withdraw from the Jefferson Parkway Association, removing a $70,000 annual payment in the process. In 2022, the county of Jefferson and city of Arvada sued Broomfield in response, claiming the parkway could not continue without that county’s continued participation. But a Colorado District Court judge dismissed that suit in December 2023, urging the parties to negotiate over Broomfield’s participation. The city and county of Broomfield expressed satisfaction with that decision, and the parkway’s future was described as “uncertain.”

In an escalatory move, in January 2024, the Colorado state chapter of the Physicians for Social Responsibility and five other groups filed a federal lawsuit in Washington D.C., seeking to prevent the greenway from coming through Rocky Flats. The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the US Federal Highway Administration, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and their respective cabinet departments (Transportation and Interior), from constructing an eight-mile trail through the most heavily plutonium-contaminated area of the wildlife refuge. (The filing assumed that the greenway would proceed from Westminster, but that city’s most recent decision to withdraw funds seems to require a different route.) According to the complaint, the city of Boulder has suggested since at least 2016 that the greenway path avoid Rocky Flats entirely.

The presiding judge, Timothy J. Kelley, denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction in September 2024. The case now awaits trial.

So far, concerns over Rocky Flats and its wildlife refuge have already limited public access to the refuge. Since April 2018, the Denver School District, the largest in the area, has forbidden its nearly 100,000 students from visiting Rocky Flats on field trips. Other school districts, including Boulder’s, had previously issued similar orders to protect their students.

It is still uncertain how the Trump administration will regard public participation, public protest, and the rule of law at Rocky Flats and other Superfund sites. The new Energy Secretary, Chris Wright, is the former chief executive of a fracking company based in Denver, a known climate change denier, and was on the boards of EMX Royalty, a Canadian company that seeks royalties from extractive mineral mining, and Oklo, Inc., which designs small modular nuclear reactors. Wright is now responsible for overseeing atomic weapons production, cleanup of former weapons facilities, and US energy policy in general. How Wright will interact with Colorado peace activists and environmental protection groups concerned about the defunct plutonium-contaminated weapons facility at Rocky Flats is unclear. But the fight over the future of this legacy site appears far from over.

March 19, 2025 Posted by | - plutonium, environment, USA | Leave a comment

Court upholds two legal challenges to the Chalk River Radioactive Megadump.

Gordon Edwards, 14 Mar 25

 The radioactive megadump planned for Chalk River (an “engineered mound” intended to contain about one million tonnes of so-called “Low-level” radioactive waste in a permanent landfill-like toxic waste dump just one kilometre from the Ottawa River) was planned by Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) and approved by CNSC.

Three legal challenges against this decision were launched in the Federal Appeals Court. The first had to do with the inadequacy of the safety case and the lack of adequate monitoring of the contents of the megadump. The second had to do with the failure to consult the Indigenous Algonquin peoples as required by the “Duty to Consult” and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The third challenge had to do with the failure to consider alternative sites for such a toxic waste facility to provide adequate protection for endangered species.

Although the first challenge was not successful, the good news is that the second and third challenges were upheld by the court and CNSC and CNL will have to re-open the regulatory process to correct the inadequacies that have been noted. This does not mean that the existing megadumo has been forbidden but that more work must be done by both the proponent and the regulator to satisfactorily address these inadequacies.

The success of the third challenge was only announced yesterday.

The Federal Court overturned the Species at Risk permit for the nuclear waste facility planned for Chalk River, just 180 km up the Ottawa River from Ottawa.

The project proponent, CNL, said that the construction would harm, harass, or kill the endangered Blanding’s Turtle and 2 endangered bat species.

The Court found that CNL did not consider all reasonable alternative locations, and CNL admitted that it picked Chalk River even though it was less favourable for protecting species at risk than two other viable sites.

This violated s. 73(3)(a) of the Species at Risk Act, which says that “all” reasonable alternatives that would reduce the impact on species at risk must be considered and the best solution must be adopted.

 There’s a lot to parse, but essentially, Justice Zinn agreed about the first 2 issues (not all reasonable locations were considered, and the best option was not chosen), but disagreed about the others (bat boxes, wildlife corridors, bird nests, the Monarch).

The win on the location issue is huge, of course. If they have to pick a new location, they have to start over from scratch and none of the other issues matter. See para 48 (of the decision) for some good reasoning by Zinn J:

During both the hearing and public consultation with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, CNL conceded that it would only consider non-AECL properties if no suitable AECL-owned site was identified. This admission confirms that CNL’s default approach was to confine its search to AECL lands unless compelled to broaden it. This methodology is directly at odds with the statutory mandate under paragraph 73(3)(a). The Minister failed to reconcile this self-imposed limitation with the statutory requirement for a comparative assessment of ecological impacts on protected species. I am of the view that, even if a non-AECL site posed greater logistical challenges, such as increased transportation distances, the Act would still require CNL to consider it if it offered reduced harm to at-risk species. Administrative or logistical difficulties do not absolve the project’s proponent of its duty to evaluate such alternatives under paragraph 73(3)(a), even if those factors later justify rejecting them.”

Unfortunately, this does not mean that ECCC will not approve the permit for Chalk River. The decision is being sent back for redetermination, as is normal in admin law cases. From Zinn’s interpretation of the statutory language, it’s hard to see how it could be approved for Chalk River, given CNL’s deficient siting process, but Zinn seemed to be aware of these massive implications and tried to avoid these repercussions. He goes out of his way to say that it could be possible for ECCC to approve the permit for Chalk River if 1) they give appropriate justification for only looking at AECL sites (para 50) and 2) interpreted “best option” differently than ECCC has in the past, to include non-species-at-risk factors, and justified this different interpretation (paras 57-61).

March 16, 2025 Posted by | Canada, Legal, wastes | 1 Comment

Governor urges contaminated soil be disposed of outside Fukushima by 2045

 Soil from radiation decontamination work after the 2011 nuclear reactor
meltdowns in Fukushima Prefecture should be disposed of outside the
prefecture by the deadline set by law, Fukushima Gov. Masao Uchibori said
in a recent interview. A law stipulates that all such soil must be disposed
of outside Fukushima by March 2045.

“The final disposal must be completed
within 20 years, no matter whether the soil is reused (within Fukushima) or
not,” the governor said. However, Shiro Izawa, the mayor of Futaba — one
of the towns hosting Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings’ crippled
Fukushima No. 1 plant — said lasts month that soil from radiation
decontamination work should be reused in Fukushima. The mayor said this was
his personal opinion. Uchibori pointed out the heavy burden placed on
Futaba and the neighboring town of Okuma for accepting interim storage
facilities for soil from decontamination work.

 Japan Times 11th March 2025. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2025/03/11/japan/fukushima-gov-soil-disposal/

March 14, 2025 Posted by | Fukushima continuing, wastes | Leave a comment

At Haverigg Today – the Nuclear LIE of a “Safe” and “Secure” Sub-Sea Nuclear Dump.

The sub-sea area involved would be 26 to 50 km square. The “smaller” area proposed would be the size of Tuvalu at 26 km square. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of ongoing research projects into, for example, the release of radioactive gases, how the heat generated would impact the geology, the steel containments and the bentonite backfill.

These ongoing research projects throw up more questions regarding the safety of long term containment. Nuclear Waste Services are asking locals who are now in reciept of nuclear dump community funds, to express support for an experiment. An experiment which will impact their health and the environment for generations to come.   Those who are not “local” who would also be impacted are deliberately excluded from “having a say.” 

March 13, 2025 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Councillors oppose nuclear dump site near Louth

‘Six more communities are now facing this devastation

By Peter Craig, Reporter, 10 Mar 25

 Councillors have voted to oppose a nuclear dump site near Louth. East
Lindsey District Council want to persuade Lincolnshire County Council to do
the same and say NO to the proposed 1,000 acre site at Great Carlton.

 Grimsby Telegraph 11th March 2025, https://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/news/grimsby-news/councillors-oppose-nuclear-dump-site-10001353

March 13, 2025 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, UK, wastes | Leave a comment

American companies profit from Canada’s radioactive waste

 https://share.sender.net/campaigns/aggx/bulletin-number–num%C3%A9ro-15-american-companies-profit-from-canadas-radioactive-waste–les-entreprises-am%C3%A9ricaines-profitent-des-d%C3%A9chets-radioactifs-du-canada 7 Mar 25

Toxic radioactive waste is expensive to clean up. Canada’s contract to clean up itslegacy waste is worth billions for a three-company consortium: Canada’s AtkinsRéalisand Texas-based Fluor and Jacobs. The two American companies run nuclear weaponsfacilities in the U.S. and U.K. in addition to their Canadian nuclear interests.

Parliament’s payment to the consortium last year was $1.3 billion. The annual payments have risen each year of the 10-year contract that will end in September 2025.

The consortium operates “Canadian Nuclear Laboratories” (CNL) in a “Government-owned, Contractor-operated” (GoCo) arrangement with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL).

The U.K. abandoned GoCo contracts because of exorbitant costs and poor value for money. Under Canada’s GoCo contract, AECL owns lands, buildings, and radioactive waste, and the three-company consortium operates AECL’s sites.

When the Harper government issued the 10-year GoCo contract during the 2015 federal election period, they said AECL lacked the ability to clean up Canada’s multi-billion radioactive waste liability dating to World War II and needed “private sector rigour. From their billion-dollar annual payout, the three partner corporations take $237 million for “contractual expenses.” The salaries of 44 senior CNL managers, mostly Americans, average over $500,000 each.

Canada’s liability includes radioactive contamination in Port Hope, Ontario where uranium was refined for the U.S. nuclear weapons industry, radioactive contamination at the Chalk River nuclear laboratory site from producing plutonium for U.S. nuclear weapons, and radioactive contamination from AECL’s shutdown “prototype” CANDU reactors and its Whiteshell research lab in Manitoba.

The radioactive clean-up cost has grown each contract year, as have the consortium’s ambitions. The focus has shifted to “revitalizing” the Chalk River facility, where Parliament has allocated additional funds to build an “Advanced Nuclear Materials Research Centre.”

The Centre will conduct SMR research including research on plutonium fuels. Both American companies have interests in SMRs. The new Centre did not undergo a licensing process or environmental assessment under the Canadian Nuclear Safety.

AECL is expected to soon announce the awarding of a new 10-year Go-Co contract. Before the contract is signed, MPs should consider whether the arrangement benefits Canada, and whether these billions should be in the hands of American managers and corporations.

Commission.

March 10, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, Canada, wastes | Leave a comment

Supreme Court wrestles with nation’s frustrating search for nuclear waste storage

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, looking ahead to the United States’ 250th anniversary next year, said, “I hope that we make it another 250, but if it takes 40 or 80 years for a solution to come, it would still be temporary, correct?”

By ASSOCIATED PRESS, 6 March 2025 ,
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-14464455/The-Supreme-Court-confronts-national-headache-What-growing-pile-nuclear-waste.html

WASHINGTON (AP) – The Supreme Court on Wednesday wrestled with whether to restart plans to temporarily store nuclear waste at sites in rural Texas and New Mexico even as some justices worried about safety issues and the lack of progress toward a permanent solution.

The justices heard arguments in a case that reflects the complicated politics of the nation´s so far futile quest for a permanent underground storage facility. A plan to build a national storage facility northwest of Las Vegas at Yucca Mountain has been mothballed because of staunch opposition from most Nevada residents and officials.

The court took up a challenge by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and a private company with a license for the Texas facility to an appellate ruling that found the commission had no authority to grant the license. The outcome of the case will affect plans for a similar facility in New Mexico roughly 40 miles (65 kilometers) away.

The licenses would allow the companies to operate the facilities for 40 years, with the possibility of a 40-year renewal.

“That doesn’t sound very interim to me,” Justice Neil Gorsuch said, while also questioning the advisability of storing spent nuclear fuel “on a concrete platform in the Permian Basis, where we get all our oil and gas from.”

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas joined Gorsuch in asking questions suggesting they were the most likely to uphold the ruling from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Roughly 100,000 tons (90,000 metric tons) of spent fuel, some of it dating from the 1980s, is piling up at current and former nuclear plant sites nationwide and growing by more than 2,000 tons (1,800 metric tons) a year. The waste was meant to be kept there temporarily before being deposited deep underground.

The NRC has said that the temporary storage sites are needed because existing nuclear plants are running out of room. The presence of the spent fuel also complicates plans to decommission some plants, the Justice Department said in court papers.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, looking ahead to the United States’ 250th anniversary next year, said, “I hope that we make it another 250, but if it takes 40 or 80 years for a solution to come, it would still be temporary, correct?”

Justice Department lawyer Malcolm Stewart agreed, noting that the spent fuel has to be kept somewhere, whether at operating and decommissioned plants or elsewhere.

Security also is cheaper with the waste in one or two locations, Stewart said, relying on arguments made by Interim Storage Partners LLC, the company with the Texas license.

Sotomayor, along with Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Brett Kavanaugh, seemed most inclined to reverse the 5th circuit. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett said little or nothing to reveal where they stand.

The NRC’s appeal was filed by the Biden administration and maintained by the new Trump administration. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott,. a Republican, and New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, are leading bipartisan opposition to the facilities in their states.

The justices will consider whether, as the NRC and Interim Storage Partners argues, the states and a private energy company forfeited their right to object to the licensing decisions because they declined to join in the commission´s proceedings.

Two other federal appeals courts, in Denver and Washington, that weighed the same issue ruled for the agency. Only the 5th Circuit allowed the cases to proceed.

The second issue is whether federal law allows the commission to license temporary storage sites. Opponents are relying on a 2022 Supreme Court decision that held that Congress must act with specificity when it wants to give an agency the authority to regulate on an issue of major national significance. In ruling for Texas, the 5th Circuit agreed that what to do with the nation´s nuclear waste is the sort of “major question” that Congress must speak to directly.

But the Justice Department has argued that the commission has long-standing authority to deal with nuclear waste reaching back to the 1954 Atomic Energy Act.

The NRC granted the Texas license to Interim Storage for a facility that could take up to 5,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel rods from power plants and 231 million tons of other radioactive waste. The facility would be built next to an existing dump site in Andrews County for low-level waste such as protective clothing and other material that has been exposed to radioactivity. The Andrews County site is about 350 miles (560 kilometers) west of Dallas, near the Texas-New Mexico state line.

The New Mexico facility would be in Lea County, in the southeastern part of the state near Carlsbad. The NRC gave a license for the site to Holtec International.

Alito, who said the interim sites could remove the incentive to find a permanent solution, asked Brad Fagg, a lawyer for Interim Storage Partners, for a prediction of when a permanent site would open.

“I’ve been in this stew for a lot of years,” Fagg said. “I would be kidding myself and this court if I said I had a date.”

A decision is expected by late June.

March 9, 2025 Posted by | Legal, USA, wastes | Leave a comment

East Lindsey overwhelmingly backs GDF withdrawal call to Lincolnshire County Council

At their March meeting, East Lindsey District Councillors backed a motion calling on their colleagues at County Hall to join them in withdrawing from the nuke dump plan.

Leader Councillor Craig Leyland confirmed that he shall recommend to his Executive that East Lindsey District Council withdraws from the process when it next meets on 23 April.

Were Lincolnshire to follow suit that would draw a line upon the issue; Nuclear Waste Services would no longer be able to investigate potential sites for the Geological Disposal Facility within the Theddlethorpe Search Area, or indeed any area within the East Lindsey District, as there would no longer be any Relevant Principal Local Authority backing the plan…………………….


 NFLA 6th March 2025,
https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/east-lindsey-overwhelmingly-backs-gdf-withdrawal-call-to-lincolnshire-county-council/

March 9, 2025 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

‘Vote out!’: Protestors win motion at ELDC full council to urge county council to withdraw from  nuclear dump talks

East Lindsey District Council
is to urge Lincolnshire County Council to follow the authority’s lead and
withdraw from the process exploring proposals for a nuclear dump site in
the district.

This follows a debate lasting more than one hour on a motion
presented to full council by Coun Travis Hesketh – a district councillor
representing communities that would be affected. Ahead of the meeting,
‘Vote Out’ protestors gathered outside the offices in Horncastle to
show their opposition to the dump and support the councillors fighting for
them.

Coun Hesketh’s motion urged the Executive and Leader of East
Lindsey District Council “to issue a statement opposing the Geological
Disposal Facility for nuclear waste in Lincolnshire and urge Lincolnshire
County Council to withdraw from the project.

 Lincolnshire World 5th March 2025, https://www.lincolnshireworld.com/news/people/vote-out-protestors-win-motion-at-eldc-full-council-to-urge-county-council-to-withdraw-from-nuclear-dump-talks-5019541

March 8, 2025 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment