nuclear-news

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

China calls for strict, long-term international supervision over Fukushima wastewater discharge: spokesman

2025-03-26,  https://www.bastillepost.com/global/article/4690031-china-calls-for-strict-long-term-international-supervision-over-fukushima-wastewater-discharge-spokesman?fbclid=IwY2xjawJSuCVleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHRXbhJz-aEa94Wd_9BghnsxtDEzzaxDZiiCBsWn9LWkvzinWWdeZIhe3Zg_aem_9apdp3Teicc2HwmyoEjwCw
Guo made the statement at a press conference in Beijing in response to a media query about Japan’s wastewater discharge.

China calls for strict and long-term international supervision over Japan’s discharge of nuclear-contaminated wastewater from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the ocean, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun said on Wednesday.

“I would like to emphasize that China opposes Japan’s unilateral discharge of nuclear-contaminated wastewater into the ocean, and this position remains unchanged. Since last year, Chinese experts have visited Japan twice to independently collect samples and announced the relevant test results in a timely manner. On the basis that Japan has fulfilled its commitments and the test results haven’t shown any abnormalities, the General Administration of Customs of China held in Beijing on March 12 technical exchanges with Japan over the safety of Japanese aquatic products,” Guo said.

“China will continue to work with the rest of the international community to urge Japan to earnestly fulfill its commitments and ensure that the discharge of Fukushima nuclear-contaminated wastewater into the sea is always under strict international supervision,” said the spokesman.

Hit by a magnitude-9.0 earthquake and an ensuing tsunami on March 11, 2011, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant suffered core meltdowns in three reactors that released radiation, resulting in a level-7 nuclear accident, the highest on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale.

The plant then generated a massive amount of wastewater tainted with radioactive substances from cooling down the nuclear fuel in the reactor buildings.

Disregarding domestic and foreign questioning and protests, the Japanese government decided in April 2021 to “filter and dilute” the nuclear contaminated wastewater from the plant and started the ocean discharge of the radioactive wastewater on August 24, 2023. This process is expected to last 20 to 30 years, until the nuclear power plant is scrapped.

March 29, 2025 Posted by | China, Fukushima continuing, wastes | Leave a comment

Dounreay learns what its share of £4bn decommissioning cash will be

 Dounreay has been allocated a total spend of £221 million for the coming
financial year. Its share of the £4 billion budget overseen by the Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority (NDA) is a good outcome for the site, according
to Dave Wilson, managing director of operators NRS.

“It’s a really, really good settlement given the current financial challenges,” he said
at the latest meeting of Dounreay Stakeholder Group (DSG) on Wednesday. Mr
Wilson said it was just over £5 million up on the previous year after
taking account of inflation. He said: “It’s a very positive settlement
for Dounreay and will make sure the site is safe, secure and able to
continue to protect the environment.” The funding would underwrite the
ongoing clean-up of the site and the upgrading of its ageing
infrastructure.

 John O’Groat Journal 22nd March 2025, https://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/news/dounreay-learns-what-its-share-of-4bn-decommissioning-cash-377633/

March 26, 2025 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Ministry of Defence under fire over nuclear clean-up in Scotland

Pete Roche, a Scottish-based nuclear consultant and critic, was concerned that no money had been set aside to cover decommissioning military sites, especially given the pressures on the budget for cleaning up civil sites.

Rob Edwards, March 23, 2025, The Ferret

The Ministry of Defence has been accused of trying to avoid responsibility for cleaning up a military nuclear site on the north coast of Scotland by making it “someone else’s problem”.

The Ferret can reveal that discussions to transfer ownership of Vulcan, a former submarine reactor testing site next to Dounreay in Caithness, to the UK and Scottish governments’ Nuclear Decommissioning Authority are at an advanced stage. The aim is to complete the deal in 2027-28.

But no decision has been taken on who will pay for the site’s multi-million pound clean-up, including dismantling and disposing of two defunct, radioactive reactors. Unlike some civil nuclear sites, military sites do not have any funding set aside for decommissioning.

Campaigners are concerned that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) could escape paying for the pollution it has caused at Vulcan and other military sites. They are demanding transparency, and calling on the Scottish Government to block any “backroom transfer” that undermines Scotland’s interests. 

The 26-strong UK group of nuclear-free local authorities is planning to raise the issue with UK nuclear minister, Lord Hunt, at a meeting on 31 March. It will be urging him to extract a promise from the MoD to fully fund the decommissioning of Vulcan.

The MoD promised to deliver “value for taxpayers’ money” on the Vulcan clean-up. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) said financing would be agreed with the UK Government “as part of the usual funding process”.

Construction work at Vulcan began in 1957, with one reactor operational from 1965 to 1984, and another from 1987 to 2015. They were used for onshore testing of five different designs of reactors to power the UK nuclear submarine fleet.

In 2012 the second Vulcan reactor suffered a mishap, and started leaking radioactivity into its cooling water. When the leak was disclosed two years later, it triggered a bitter argument between the Scottish and UK governments.

The then first minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond, accused the Conservative UK defence minister, Philip Hammond, of deception. Hammond had told MPs that there had been “no measurable change in the radiation discharge” from Vulcan.

But an investigation by the Sunday Herald revealed that there had in fact been a tenfold rise in emissions of radioactive gases. Hammond subsequently corrected the official parliamentary record……………………………………………………..

There are seven defunct nuclear submarines awaiting decommissioning at Rosyth in Fife and a further 15 at Devonport in Plymouth. Other MoD nuclear sites in Scotland that may eventually need to be cleaned up are the Faslane nuclear submarine base and the Coulport nuclear weapons depot on the Clyde near Helensburgh.

The Scottish Government reports, however, have little to say about how the Vulcan clean-up will be paid for.  According to another January 2025 update, a paper on “post-transfer funding options” was “being socialised” within the NDA – though it is unclear what this means.

The costs of decommissioning the more recent civil nuclear power stations, including Hunterston B in North Ayrshire and Torness in East Lothian, will be covered by the UK Government’s Nuclear Liabilities Fund. It has secured more than £20 billion from private power companies.

But there is no equivalent fund for cleaning up military nuclear sites. Uncertainty over how Vulcan’s decommissioning will be funded has triggered widespread fears that the MoD could be seeking to wriggle out of its responsibilities. 

‘Unacceptable’ for MoD to evade nuclear responsibilities

Alba, the breakaway nationalist party launched in 2021 by former SNP leader, Alex Salmond, is “deeply concerned” that the MoD may “offload” defence nuclear liabilities “without transparency or adherence to the polluter pays principle.”

The party’s national organiser, retired Royal Navy commodore Rob Thompson, said: “It is unacceptable for current and future Scottish taxpayers to bear billions in clean-up costs while the MoD evades responsibility.  

“The Scottish Government must urgently clarify its due diligence processes, civil-defence cooperation policy and use its veto to oppose any backroom transfer that undermines Scotland’s interests.”………………………………………………..

The Nuclear Free Local Authorities highlighted reports in February that £2.8 billion given to the NDA by the UK Government to clean up the biggest and dirtiest nuclear site at Sellafield in Cumbria was “not enough”.

“We will be raising directly with nuclear minister, Lord Hunt, how important it is that he secures from his colleague, the defence secretary, a promise to fully finance decommissioning work at Vulcan,” said the group’s secretary, Richard Outram.

“It is our view that the principle that the polluter pays should apply equally to both the nuclear industry and the defence ministry.”

Pete Roche, a Scottish-based nuclear consultant and critic, was concerned that no money had been set aside to cover decommissioning military sites, especially given the pressures on the budget for cleaning up civil sites.

“The UK Government must increase the NDA’s budget sufficiently if it is expected to take on the MoD’s decommissioning work as well,” he said.

Tor Justad, chairperson of Highlands Against Nuclear Power (HANP), is a member of the Dounreay Stakeholder Group, which covers Vulcan. It was important that details of the transfer to the NDA were “clarified as soon as possible and that the full costs of returning the land to a brownfield site should be paid for by the MoD,” he said……………………………….
https://theferret.scot/nuclear-clean-up-vulcan-mod/

March 25, 2025 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Thin-wall canisters do not really stop radiation from nuclear wastes

Donna Gilmore, Systems Analyst , SanOnofreSafety.org, Monterey, CA

Technically these thin-wall canister systems  are not waste storage systems since they continuously release radiation and even create new radiation. 

Thin-wall canisters do not stop gamma or neutron radiation per the NRC. This radiation is released through the concrete cask/overpack large air vents. 

Also, water and carbon particles are converted to radioactive water and radioactive carbon (from neutron bombardment). This radiation is also  released through the air vents.

All of this is without any cracks in the thin-wall canisters.  This is by design!

The NRC only measures low-energy gamma radiation. This is a massive coverup that needs to be exposed to the world. 

This is a non-partisan issue. We need to stop the political bickering and work with both Democrats and Republicans on this issue.

March 24, 2025 Posted by | wastes | Leave a comment

Nuclear bosses quizzed by MPs over Sellafield’s £130 billion century-long clean up

 by Business Crack, March 21, 2025

 The Public Accounts Committee examined the decommissioning of Sellafield
at a hearing yesterday morning. In the session, which lasted over two
hours, Euan Hutton, chief executive at Sellafield Ltd and David Peattie,
group chief executive office at Nuclear Decommissioning Authority were
among those giving evidence. It also saw Lee McDonough, director general,
net zero, nuclear and international at Department for Energy Security and
Net Zero, Clive Maxwell, second permanent secretary at Department for
Energy Security and Net Zero, and Kate Bowyer, chief financial officer at
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, appear in front of the committee.

The hearing follows a National Audit Office report that found while management
of major projects have begun to improve, four projects underway when the
office last reported in 2018 were significantly over budget and behind
schedule. It added while Sellafield has demonstrated that it can remove its
most hazardous waste, progress is not quick enough.

MPs covered several
topics at the hearing yesterday relating to the £130 billion century-long
clean up of the Sellafield and work at the site.

Topics included: How realistic targets and goals set for decommissioning are; Whistleblowing ands urrounding policies; Balancing safety with value for money; Public safety
– in particular covering the Magnox Reprocessing Plant; The select
committee heard that a leak from Magnox started in the 2019 and every three
years, it leaked enough material to fill an Olympic-sized swimming pool.
But Mr Hutton said the leak, caused by a crack in the underground section
of the silo, was not detrimental to the public. He said it was monitored
closely and that showed the leak was staying beneath the surface.

Mr Peattie said it was Britain’s most hazardous building and the best way to
stop the leak was to empty the silo as quickly as possible. It is hoped it
will be emptied by 2059. Concerns around Sellafield’s ability to meet its
long and short term targets were also raised. Milestones for substantially
emptying three of the legacy ponds and silos have been pushed back by
between six and 13 years.

 Business Crack 31st March 2025 https://businesscrack.co.uk/2025/03/21/nuclear-bosses-quizzed-by-mps-over-sellafields-130-billion-century-long-clean-up/

March 24, 2025 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

SCOTUS Ruling Could Shape the Future of Nuclear Waste Storage.

Samuel Lawrence Foundation, 20 Mar 25

The U.S. Supreme Court is currently reviewing a case that could have major implications for how nuclear waste is stored across the country—including the 3.6 million pounds of radioactive waste at San Onofre. At the center of the case is whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has the authority to license private interim storage facilities, such as the one proposed in Andrews County, Texas, which would hold high-level nuclear waste away from reactor sites. Texas has challenged this decision, arguing that the NRC is overstepping its legal bounds and that waste management should remain under federal oversight.

This case matters to us because San Onofre’s waste remains in thin-walled metal canisters near a rising ocean, with no long-term plan for safe containment. If the Supreme Court rules against private storage, it could limit future options for moving this waste to a safer location. Meanwhile, if the Court upholds the NRC’s authority, it could pave the way for private companies to take a larger role in nuclear waste management—raising serious questions about safety, oversight, and accountability. As we continue to fight for a real solution for San Onofre, this decision will play a critical role in shaping what’s possible. Stay tuned for more updates as this case unfolds.

March 23, 2025 Posted by | Legal, USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Sellafield decommissioning to continue for at least a century – robot dogs play a part

Robot dogs could help decommission Sellafield nuclear plant after successful trials.

Operators working from the Westlakes Science Park in Whitehaven, around
eight miles from Sellafield, remotely operated “safely and securely” a
custom Boston Dynamics Spot Quadrupedal Robot ‘dog’ that could carry
out tasks such as remote inspections, data gathering and clean-up work.

Energy generation at the plant stopped in 2003, but the painstaking
decommissioning process typically takes decades and presents radioactive
hazards to workers. Sellafield is unusual in that the decommissioning
challenge also encompasses early nuclear research and nuclear weapons
programmes that took place on the site.

The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) is not expecting full site remediation to be completed until 2125.

 Engineering & Technology 20th March 2025

March 22, 2025 Posted by | decommission reactor, UK | Leave a comment

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

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »