nuclear-news

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

The massive costs of USA’s stranded canisters of nuclear wastes

These dumpsters of old nuclear waste are costing taxpayers a fortune https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/01/31/these-dumpsters-old-nuclear-waste-are-costing-you-billions/lw7aIpcWOhmn3ThjeqEnVP/story.html

They were supposed to be hauled away decades ago. They’re still here.

By Joshua Miller GLOBE STAFF  JANUARY 31, 2019

ROWE — The nuclear plant deep in the woods of this Western Massachusetts town stopped producing power 27 years ago when George H.W. Bush was still president. It was dismantled, piece by piece. Buried piping was excavated. Tainted soil was removed. But nestled amid steep hills and farmhouses set on winding roads, something important was left behind.

Under constant armed guard, 16 canisters of highly radioactive waste are entombed in reinforced concrete behind layers of fencing. These 13-foot-tall cylinders may not be much to look at, but they are among the most expensive dumpsters in the country, monuments to government inaction.

Lawyers for Rowe’s defunct plant and long-dismantled reactors in
Maine and Connecticut are poised to march into a federal courtroom in coming weeks and, for the fourth time in recent years, extract a huge sum of taxpayer money to cover ongoing security and maintenance costs. Taxpayers have already ponied up $500 million as a result of lawsuits filed by the plants’ owners, and they are poised to pay $100 million more this time.

Nationally, the US government’s failure to keep its vow to dispose of spent nuclear fuel and other high-level waste is proving staggeringly expensive. So far, the government has paid out more than $7 billion in damages for violating its legal pledge to begin hauling away nuclear waste by 1998.

And costs are expected to soar as more of the nation’s aging reactors close permanently: Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth, for instance, is slated to go offline by June. Eventually, the remaining staff may have the sole job of safeguarding the radioactive detritus.

By the Department of Energy’s own optimistic estimates, the government will be forced to cough up a whopping $28 billion more in taxpayer funds as a result of litigation in coming years.

Long before the 35-day partial government shutdown crippled Washington, the dug-in debate over where to dump the nation’s civilian nuclear waste set the radioactive standard for government dysfunction. For more than 60 years, government officials have tried to solve the problem, but plan after plan has collapsed amidst nationwide cries of “Not in my backyard!” So far, all officials have to show for the work is an enormous $10 billion-plus hole in Nevada that will probably never be used.

Instead of consolidating waste in one place, it has left material that is toxic for thousands of years at scores of current and former civilian nuclear plants. Neighbors fear the waste will stay permanently, siphoning money from other needs, thwarting redevelopment, and eventually posing a safety risk.

Senator Edward J. Markey, a longtime nuclear skeptic, said lingering nuclear waste tends to focus the attention of nearby cities and towns on a simple question: “When is this problem going to be solved? Or am I going to have a nuclear waste site in my community for the rest of my family’s life?”

The promise of nuclear power burned bright in 1960 when the Yankee Atomic Electric Co. first fired up its reactor in Rowe. But, even then, proponents of the new power source knew they were creating a problem: the super-hot, super-radioactive uranium fuel rods left over from generating power. Most plants dumped them in deep pools of water, but that was only a temporary solution

By the early 1980s, as waste accumulated, Congress made this pledge: The Department of Energy would haul away nuclear plants’ spent fuel and other high-level waste starting by 1998 and the owners would pick up the tab, in part through a fee in customers’ electric bills.

The law was supposed to jump-start a scientific process to choose the best repository for waste. But not-in-my-backyard politics repeatedly got in the way. Who, after all, wants a national nuclear waste dump buried nearby forever?

Congress later zeroed in on a remote desert site called Yucca Mountain in Nevada, about 75 miles from Las Vegas.

But Nevada didn’t want the nation’s spent nuclear fuel either, and the state’s top politician, senator Harry Reid, the majority leader from 2007 to 2015, strongly opposed the plan. After the United States spent more than $10 billion drilling down into and studying the site, the Obama administration effectively killed Yucca around 2010. Congress has not restarted funding for the effort.

Proposals to create a consolidated repository to store the waste for an interim period in New Mexico and West Texas are moving forward. But those, too, face huge hurdles.

Meanwhile, electric ratepayers from New England, home to seven current and former nuclear power plants, have paid what is now an estimated $3 billion with interest into the fund to dispose of nuclear waste.

But the account has not brought its intended benefit.

Even with strong support for a permanent fix from the nuclear power industry, environmentalists, and local officials, Congress has remained deadlocked on a final resting place for spent fuel and other highly radioactive waste.

So nuclear plants continue to keep the waste on hand. And they continue to get reimbursed for payroll, security, supplies, and more, because the courts have found the government is in partial breach of its contract to haul away the waste.

In a twist, the government’s payments can’t come from that nuclear waste fund, a federal court ruled. Instead, it is taken from a separate pool of taxpayer dollars for court judgments and settlements of lawsuits against the government.

The latest suit from Yankee Rowe and the two other fully shuttered New England plants in Wiscasset, Maine, and Haddam, Conn., is set to soon go to trial and cost taxpayers more than $100 million.

And it probably won’t be the last lawsuit. Company officials say each plant spends about $10 million a year safeguarding its waste and maintaining corporate structures solely for that task.

Meanwhile, soon-to-close Pilgrim is getting ready to follow in Yankee Rowe’s footsteps, moving its remaining spent fuel from cooling pools to huge concrete cylinders, known as dry cask storage, by 2022.

So far, across the country, there haven’t been any serious accidents with the casks, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. But as the time frame for their use stretches out indefinitely, no one can be sure how long before the waste poses a threat.

The uncertainty also is forcing plant operators to plan for longer-term issues including climate change and rising sea levels. Officials at Pilgrim, which is oceanfront property, said last year that the plant will move its current cylinders to higher ground and place new ones there, too.

The NRC believes the casks should be safe for years to come, licensing their use for up to 40 years at a time.

The agency has ruled that, with proper inspection and maintenance, casks could last more than 100 years before the waste would have to be transferred to a new steel canister and concrete shell.

But Allison M. Macfarlane, a former NRC chairwoman, said there’s no guarantee the infrastructure will be in place to monitor them for safety.

“That assumes our institutions are robust and will last hundreds of years and I think that’s a poor assumption based on no evidence whatsoever,” Macfarlane said in the midst of the partial federal shutdown.

That is why, experts insist, a permanent subterranean repository like the one planned for Yucca Mountain is the only real solution.

“You should really put it underground where the risk is much lower and you don’t have to worry about institutional failures,” said MIT researcher Charles W. Forsberg, a chemical and nuclear engineer.

In the meantime, communities that host closed and closing nuclear plants face yet another cost: prime real estate that’s potentially locked up for generations.

State Senator Viriato M. deMacedo of Plymouth said, “We have a mile of oceanfront property where that plant is. Once it closes, it will never be able to be used as long as those spent fuel rods are there.”

Some still hope that politicians will find a final graveyard for the nuclear waste, and the bucolic valley where Yankee Rowe stood and the beach where Pilgrim stands are redeveloped.

But, after three generations of failed efforts to permanently dispose of the waste, another vision is more likely. Plymouth, where the Pilgrims made the West’s first permanent mark in New England, could be home to its last: 61 gigantic casks of nuclear waste forever overlooking the sea.

 

February 16, 2019 Posted by | USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Dangers in Pilgrim nuclear waste shutdown – dry waste casks becoming stranded for decades?

The Future Of Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station: Radioactive Waste And Many Questions By Sarah Mizes-Tan WGBH, 

Built in 1972 on the shores of Cape Cod Bay, Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station has been the subject of controversy and concern for decades. Now it’s scheduled to close in the next few months. This is part three of a three-part series on the plant as it heads towards permanent shutdown in mid-2019. Read parts one andtwo.

Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station is nearly 50 years old. It’s moving toward a permanent shutdown in four months, but there are still concerns about safety. When a nuclear power plant closes, it leaves radioactive waste, and a lot of unanswered questions……..

As the plant ages, nuclear opponents are increasingly worried that an accident similar to the one in this drill could lead to a nuclear meltdown. Harwich resident Diane Turco, a longtime critic of the plant, is concerned that the consequences of a nuclear explosion would have far-reaching effects. She has overlaid an image of the radioactive plume generated after the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi plant explosion on a map of New England.

“We superimposed that data over Pilgrim, and you can see where it goes,” she said.

The plume she points to would stretch from Long Island to Maine. And though the plant is closing soon, the risk for a nuclear meltdown still remains, even after it’s stopped generating power. One morning, Turco visited the plant to point out what she’s really worried about: the dry cask storage units, a cluster of concrete cylinders sitting next to the plant.

“We should not be able to be here. If somebody had bad intent, there’s the dry casks right there,” she said.

She’s worried that the casks, which contain radioactive material from the reactor, are too easily accessible and unprotected. An attack on the casks could result in a nuclear explosion.

“You could jump over here and be over there in two minutes,” she said. She pointed out a lack of security surveillance of the road passing by the storage casks.

To add to existing concerns, Entergy is now looking to sell the power plant to Holtec, a company that specializes in nuclear decommissioning — basically, shutting nuclear power plants down. It’s the same company that manufactured the dry cask storage cylinders that Turco pointed out. The company claims that it can decommission Pilgrim Nuclear in less time and for less money than Entergy is able to……https://www.wgbh.org/news/local-news/2019/02/12/the-future-of-pilgrim-nuclear-power-station-radioactive-waste-and-many-questions

February 16, 2019 Posted by | USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Legality of Holtec’s Interim Spent Fuel Repository Application Called Into Question

— Gina G. Scala, Sandpaper, Feb 13, 2019, Opponents of an interim spent nuclear fuel repository proposed by Holtec International, the Camden-based company seeking to jump start the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station decommissioning should a license transfer be granted by the feds, say the company is putting the cart before the horse when it comes to seeking approval for the southeast New Mexico site. In fact, Caroline Reiser, a fellow with Emory Law School’s Turner Environment Law Clinic who appeared on behalf of Beyond Nuclear at an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board legal proceeding last month, called the application illegal.

“This adjudicatory body does not have the authority to review a license application that is based on an illegal premise,” she said during the first day of a two-day legal proceeding on the application. “Although Holtec presents it as an alternative, the mere inclusion of the Department of Energy as an option to be responsible for spent nuclear fuel transported to and stored at the proposed facility is illegal.”

Citing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, Reiser said the federal government cannot take title to privately produced spent nuclear fuel until a final repository is operational.

“The law is clear,” she said. “There is no dispute that no final repository is operational, let alone even licensed; thus Holtec’s application is based on an illegal presumption, and application should be dismissed.”

Indeed, the DOE unceremoniously rejected its own plans for a federal repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada almost a decade ago. It was the same site the DOE selected in 2002 as its long-term solution for housing spent nuclear fuel from the nation’s commercial nuclear power plants as well as U.S. Navy reactors.

“The interim repositories are viewed as a storage bridge until a permanent repository is opened,” Neil Sheehan, Nuclear Regulatory Commission public information officer for Region 1, said recently. “At this point, it is not clear when, or if, that will occur.”

He said the federal agency isn’t actively reviewing the Yucca Mountain application because more funding to do so is needed.

“We need to conduct a hearing on the proposal,” Sheehan said.

In the meantime, Reiser said Holtec’s application attempts to skirt the issue of who may legally own nuclear waste it proposes to store.

“The Nuclear Waste Policy Act is Congress’ comprehensive scheme for the interim storage and permanent disposal of high-level radioactive waste generated by civilian nuclear power plants,” she said. “It is the result of brilliant and wise balancing on the part of Congress that establishes distinct responsibilities for the federal government and private generators regarding spent fuel with the ultimate goal that nuclear waste will end up underground in a permanent repository.”………..

Holtec and its opponents had until Feb. 11 to provide additional information for consideration. There is no time frame for a decision from the ASBL on the proceedings.

Three administrative judges from the NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board presided over the session. The board may hold adjudicative hearings on major licensing actions by the NRC, but is independent of the NRC staff. A board’s rulings may be appealed to the commission, a five-member board that sets NRC policy.

gscala@thesandpaper.net  https://thesandpaper.villagesoup.com/p/legality-of-holtecs-interim-spent-fuel-repository-application-called-into-question/1800897

February 16, 2019 Posted by | USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Nuclear Waste Handling Bill Under Scrutiny

 https://www.kxnet.com/news/minot-news/nuclear-waste-handling-bill-under-scrutiny/1776201036, By: Jim Olson  Feb 12, 2019   ND – A state Senate committee will continue discussions this week on a bill that spells out North Dakota’s regulation of nuclear waste storage.

February 16, 2019 Posted by | USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Mental health issues in Kimba, a small Australian agricultural town, because government plans a nuclear waste dump there

Nuclear waste site selection process triggers mental health concerns, business boycotts and division, FOI documents reveal, ABC North and West By Gary-Jon Lysaght  13 Feb 19, (FOI documents are attached on the original) Freedom of Information (FOI) documents reveal the Federal Government has been aware of potential mental health issues, from as early as 2017, caused by the search for a site to store the nation’s nuclear waste.The Federal Government is currently considering two sites at Kimba and one near Hawker for a facility that would permanently store low-level waste and temporarily store medium-level waste.

Kimba, a small town on South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula, has been divided on whether to support or oppose the facility. Some residents believe the facility could help bring much-needed business to the rural town, while others suggest it could damage the region’s agricultural reputation.

“Many of the opposed group have raised the issue of mental health in submissions and direct discussions,” the FOI documents, written in 2017, said.

They believe mental health issues are arising in Kimba due to the stress of being in this process.

“These issues have been raised with the Kimba doctor and counsellor.”

Centre Alliance Senator Rex Patrick obtained the Freedom of Information documents and hoped the concerns were a catalyst for change.

“In my view, that creates a very strong obligation for the Government to act,” he said.

“They’ve clearly known about this issue since 2017 and it is now time to ask the minister exactly what he is doing in relation to that.”……. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-13/foi-documents-show-kimba-divided-over-nuclear-waste-site/10807462

February 14, 2019 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, psychology - mental health, social effects, wastes | Leave a comment

UK government’s Radioactive Waste Management (RWM) looking for nuclear waste dump site in regions of England and Wales

Western Telegraph 12th Feb 2019 , RADIOACTIVE waste could one day be stored deep beneath the Pembrokeshire
countryside. Radioactive Waste Management (RWM) – set up by the government
– is on the look-out for a suitable site in which to dispose of radioactive
waste. England and Wales have been divided into sub-regions, three of which
include parts of Pembrokeshire, which could potentially house an
underground geological disposal facility (GDF). St Davids and its
surrounding coastline, up to North Wales, and an area starting at St Brides
Bay and leading south-east to Swansea are among the regions being assessed
for their suitability.
https://www.westerntelegraph.co.uk/news/17427410.pembrokeshire-is-on-the-list-of-potential-nuclear-waste-storage-sites/

February 14, 2019 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Californian company’s plan for deep burial of nuclear wastes , close to the point of production

Compelo 12 th Feb 2019 , California-based Deep Isolation claims to have the answer to the world’s
spent nuclear fuel problem, with more than 30 countries playing host to a
growing stockpile of radioactive waste. Based out of California, the
company has developed technology it claims can solve a problem its CEO
Elizabeth Muller argues is second only to climate change in terms of its
environmental severity. Capitalising on advances in drilling technology,
the solution involves storing the spent nuclear fuel in corrosion-resistant
canisters and placing them in drillholes deep beneath the earth at sites
near where the waste was produced so as to minimise costs.
https://www.compelo.com/energy/news/deep-isolation-spent-nuclear-fuel/

February 14, 2019 Posted by | USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Reclassifying nuclear wastes: Mayor of Richland, and Tri-City Development Council argue in favour of this

Update old definitions about nuclear waste to speed safe cleanup https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/update-old-definitions-about-nuclear-waste-to-speed-safe-cleanup/ February 10, 2019 How can we expect to effectively address this problem if we aren’t even willing to accurately define it?   By Robert Thompson and Carl Adrian

The U.S. Department of Energy recently released new estimates for the cost of cleaning up the Hanford nuclear site in central Washington state. That number could now reach a staggering $677 billion, with active cleanup ending in the year 2079. Under this scenario the federal government would spend, on average, more than $11 billion dollars every year for 60 years.

As leaders in the Tri-Cities — the community closest to and most impacted by the Hanford site — we believe  that the United States simply must find a way to effectively address this problem at a price that taxpayers can afford. One clear step in the right direction is to begin managing the waste based on its actual contents and risks rather than an arbitrary definition developed decades ago.

To summarize, DOE is responsible for the cleanup of waste left over from decades of nuclear-weapons production, including approximately 53 million gallons in underground tanks at Hanford. Federal laws passed in 1954 and 1982 guide the agency’s management of this waste but do not clearly specify how the waste should be categorized. Rather than making a determination, the agency simply decided in the early 1980s to manage much of our nation’s defense nuclear waste as high-level, requiring the highest standards, regardless of the actual amount of radioactivity it contains or risk it poses.

DOE is now considering moving away from this well-intentioned, but overly costly and inaccurate approach. Instead of arbitrarily making decisions based solely on the origin of the waste, agency officials are proposing to manage this waste based on its actual physical characteristics. This is the same method that countries like France and Germany use to guide their waste-management decisions, and would bring the U.S. closer to international standards established by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Why does this matter? A risk-based approach would allow DOE to manage, treat and dispose of defense waste in a manner that accurately reflects its contents and the potential risks it poses to human health and the environment. Doing so could reduce cleanup costs by tens of billions of dollars, and has the potential to significantly speed up remediation efforts at Hanford and elsewhere.

DOE has been accused of proposing this change in order to save money and shirk its responsibilities, but this new approach would not mean that the federal government can simply walk away from its cleanup obligations. The federal government has committed to many billions of dollars’ worth of remediation work at Hanford and elsewhere, and budget shortfalls mean that important cleanup projects often don’t get started soon enough, or take too long to complete.

Treating waste based on its actual contents would allow DOE to direct the resources they save toward other important cleanup efforts that would otherwise languish, potentially for years to come. It could also open up pathways to get some waste out of Washington state more quickly. These waste streams would otherwise remain at Hanford for many more years, or even permanently.

In their letter to DOE opposing this proposed change, Gov. Jay Inslee and Attorney General Bob Ferguson stated, “our communities deserve to be heard on this dangerous idea.” We find it frustrating that in this case the governor and AG aren’t listening to the community that is most directly impacted by Hanford cleanup.

We do not feel that it is a dangerous idea and, to the contrary, believe that it will allow other important cleanup work at the Hanford site to happen faster.

Ultimately, there is high-level defense nuclear waste at Hanford and elsewhere that does need to be treated and disposed of in a deep geological repository. It is some of the most challenging and expensive material that our country has to address. We should not, however, delay cleanup progress and waste taxpayer funds by unnecessarily managing lower-level waste, which scientists agree can be safely disposed at permitted sites, in the same manner. After all, how can we expect to effectively address this problem if we aren’t even willing to accurately define it?

The Tri-City community wants the Hanford site remediated as quickly and effectively as possible, but we see no need to make an already difficult job even harder. Our hope is for DOE to meaningfully engage with the appropriate regulatory bodies, including the Washington State Department of Ecology, to determine, in a technically justified manner, that more waste can be managed as low-level.

Importantly, this will require the state government and our elected officials to keep an open mind and make a genuine effort to reach a reasonable consensus. If they are successful, it will open the door for faster, less costly remediation outside of Washington state while still allowing the work to be accomplished safely and responsibly.

We can then turn our attention and resources to other high-priority cleanup efforts at Hanford, and we will all be better off for it.

Robert Thompson is mayor of the City of Richland, the city closest to the Hanford site.

Carl Adrian is president of the Tri-City Development Council, which has advocated for the Tri-Cities on Hanford-related matters since 1963.

February 12, 2019 Posted by | Reference, USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Likely areas of Wales to be targeted for nuclear waste dumping

Dumping England’s nuclear mud in Wales

most lethal nuclear waste

Here’s what the Government’s geologists had to say about the area in which you live, Wales Online By Nathan Bevan, 10 FEB 2019 

Meetings are to be held in Wales next month as part of the search for a site in which to bury the country’s most dangerous radioactive waste.

People in two areas – Swansea and Llandudno – are to be consulted as part of the Government-run Radioactive Waste Management’s hunt for “a willing host community” where the lethal stockpile can be buried hundreds of metres underground over decades to come.

There are also meetings in eight areas of England as the government hunts for a single location to bury the lethal waste.

The waste, which has been accumulating from nuclear power stations over the last 60 years, is to be transferred from specially-engineered containers where it is currently building up to a subterranean Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) where it can be left forever.

The government’s official line is that no location has been chosen and that any site will only be picked if a community is willing.

Experts at the RWM (a subsidiary of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority) have been scouring Wales for suitable regions and this is what they have to say about the area in which you live:

1. North Wales offshore including the Vale of Clwyd……….

2. North Wales Coalfield, comprising Wrexham and north to Prestatyn…….

3. From St Brides Bay to the Severn Estuary, extending north to Welshpool……

4. 20 km offshore strip along the Bristol Channel – from Carmarthen Bay to Cardiff…..

5. Most of North Wales and West Wales – from  St Davids to Bangor……

6. Mostly offshore between St Davids and Caernarfon, with a small onshore area south of Harlech  ……. https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/parts-wales-being-looked-sites-15805907

February 11, 2019 Posted by | civil liberties, politics, UK, wastes | Leave a comment

UK radioactive trash for Northern Ireland? Newry is being considered

Newry is being considered as a possible location to store the UK’s nuclear refuse https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/british-nuclear-waste-facility-could-be-located-near-newry-1.3784563, Feb 7, 2019, Jack Power The Border town of Newry is being considered as a location to dispose of the United Kingdom’s nuclear waste, with research identifying the area as potentially suitable for an underground disposal facility.

February 11, 2019 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Gerry Adams of Sinn Fein warns about UK considering nuclear waste dumping in Northern Ireland

February 9, 2019 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Cost of USA’s cold war nuclear weapons waste clean-up now estimated at $377 Billion

February 7, 2019 Posted by | USA, wastes, weapons and war | Leave a comment

British plans for nuclear waste dumping in Norther Ireland go awfy

Irish News 5th Feb 2019 THE British government-owned company tasked with finding sites for disposing of radioactive waste has said it cannot progress any plans for a nuclear dump in Northern Ireland while Stormont is suspended. Radioactive
Waste Management (RWM) said the north is the “region least likely” to house
a nuclear waste disposal facility because the project requires the approval
of the devolved administration, as well as those living near a potential
site.

Concern about the company’s plans was triggered by an online video
showing prospective locations for a nuclear dump. The video shows Amy
Shelton, a senior research manager with RWM, outlining the geological
conditions that make certain areas suitable for the disposal of radioactive
waste.

The presentation, which divides the north into four geological areas
– or sub-regions – is similar to corresponding videos produced by RWM
that cover England and Wales. Scotland does not feature as its devolved
government adopted a policy of ‘near surface disposal’, according to RWM.

The video sparked a response from political representatives in south Down
after the granite-rich area around Newry was earmarked by Ms Shelton as a
potential location for a “geological disposal facility”. She said more work
was needed to establish whether conditions are suitable. But Sinn Féin MP
Chris Hazzard said any proposal to locate a site in parts of Co Down and Co
Armagh was “totally unacceptable”.

http://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2019/02/05/news/stormont-suspension-thwarts-nuclear-dump-proposals-1543803/

February 7, 2019 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Calls to make Calder Hall the first nuclear reactor in the UK to be decommissioned

Whitehaven News 5th Feb 2019 , CALLS are growing to make Calder Hall the first nuclear reactor in the UK
to be decommissioned. Nuclear officials say that if decommissioning is
delayed, the asbestos in the reactor will pose a risk to workers, while
maintenance costs will become ‘unsupportable’.

Council bosses are ramping up the pressure on the Government to fast-track the dismantling of the world’s oldest industrial-scale nuclear power station based at
Sellafield. The authority’s nuclear board will be asked today to delegate
authority to council chief executive Pat Graham and the nuclear
portfolio-holder councillor David Moore to develop a detailed case for
accelerated decommissioning.

Councillors agreed at the end of last year
that the UK’s first industrial-scale power station to be built should
also be the first to be cleaned up. Calder Hall is one of 11 reactor sites
around the country and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is now
reviewing the “timing and sequence” of its nationwide clean-up
operation.

At present the defuelling of Calder Hall is due to be finished
in 2019/20, and would not enter a care and maintenance (C&M) status until
2034. The argument for tackling the Sellafield-based reactor first includes
the continuing risk it poses to workers and the public. The report said:
“As the oldest Magnox reactor, the deterioration of the building fabric
and the potential for significant quantities of asbestos to be present pose
risk to workers. The cost borne by the taxpayer associated with maintaining
the building in a safe state for a long period of care and maintenance
could be significant and could increase over time to meet future regulatory
requirement.”

The report concludes that the reactor could deteriorate to
the point that the cost of keeping it compliant with environmental
regulations becomes “unsupportable”. The accelerated clean-up of Calder
Hall could also create jobs to offset some of the 3,000 “surplus roles”
expected at Sellafield over the next four to five years.
https://www.whitehavennews.co.uk/news/17410498.calls-to-make-calder-hall-first-nuclear-reactor-in-uk-to-be-decommissioned/

February 7, 2019 Posted by | decommission reactor, UK | Leave a comment

UK: The Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA) calls for a more thorough plan for nuclear wastes and phaseout of nuclear power

NFLA 5th Feb 2019 The Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA) publishes today its views on the proposed Scottish Nuclear Sector Plan document being consulted on by the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA).

SEPA has been consulting
on its draft Nuclear Sector Plan with ‘considerable input’ from the
nuclear industry. The plan is SEPA’s vision of how regulations will be
enforced to ensure that the nuclear industry is fully compliant with its
environmental obligations and is encouraged to go beyond compliance with
environmental regulations to ensure that environmental impacts are
minimised. SEPA has asked for public comments on its draft plan. SEPA says
its draft plan is ‘ambitious’.

 

The Nuclear Free Local Authorities
(NFLA) rather thinks it should be much more ambitious, recognising that
nuclear power has no medium or long-term place in a sustainable economy,
and that the ‘nuclear waste hierarchy’ should be re-thought to maximise
the protection of the public. The NFLA Scottish Forum has also decided to
respond to SEPA’s consultation by publishing within it its own vision of
a Scotland where nuclear power generation is phased out and the wastes
remaining are managed according to a clear set of environmental principles.
ttp://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/nfla-views-sepa-scottish-nuclear-sector-plan-decommissioning-nuclear-phase-out-alternative-energy-vision/

February 7, 2019 Posted by | politics, UK, wastes | Leave a comment