Germany’s atomic phase-out: How to dismantle a nuclear power plant https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-atomic-phase-out-how-to-dismantle-a-nuclear-power-plant/a-47823766– 11 Mar 19, Germany now has just seven nuclear plants left in operation, but what becomes of those that are already decommissioned? Bits of them are recycled, and could ultimately end up in our kitchens.
When Egbert Bialk looks at the giant demolition robot perched on top of the cooling tower at the Mülheim-Kärlich nuclear power plant, it makes him happy.
“Happy that the eyesore is finally being dismantled,” he told DW. “Some said we should leave it standing as a memorial or piece of art. But for me the tower is like a symbol of humanity’s arrogance, of us playing with fire.”
Bialk began campaigning against the reactor when it was built near his home in the 1970s, and has since joined the local chapter of environmental group BUND to observe the 1 billion euros ($1.2 billion) decommissioning of the facility.
The dismantling of the western German plant, which will take two decades to complete, started in 2004, seven years before the Fukushima disaster that prompted Angela Merkel’s government to announce the nation’s complete withdrawal from nuclear power by 2022.
With just a couple of years to go before that deadline, seven plants are still in operation, and even after they’ve shut down for good, it will take many more years before all the country’s reactors have been safely dismantled, and contaminated sites cleared and deemed free of radiation
One of the most pressing questions during this lengthy process, is what to do with the radioactive waste?
Buried in mines
The first things to be removed are the heavily contaminated spent fuel rods, which contain the nuclear fuel that is converted into electrical power.
Because Germany doesn’t yet have a long-term depository for highly radioactive waste, the rods are currently stored in so-called Castor containers in several locations across the country.
By the time all the nation’s reactors have been decomissioned, there will be around 1,900 such containers in interim storage. And there they will remain until a suitable location for their permanent resting place has been found
Read more: Nuclear waste in disused German mine leaves a bitter legacy
“We expect the storage phase to take 50 years,” Monika Hotopp, spokeswoman of BGE told DW.
Exactly what it will all cost, is unknown. Much depends on the ultimate location, but the 4.2 billion euro preparations of a former iron ore mine known as pit Konrad to be used as the final depository for low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste could serve as some kind of indicator.
Once things like technical equipment and parts of buildings exposed to nuclear fission reaction for years, have been buried in the mine, it will be filled up with concrete and sealed.
“When sealed, it’s safe and there should be no danger of nuclear radiation for the environment,” Hotopp told DW.
Environmental groups however, warn that nuclear waste remains a threat even when buried deep under the ground.
“The depositories have to be able to contain radiation for up to 500,000 years,” local environmentalist Bialk told DW. “We are giving a time bomb to future generations.”
Building materials recycled into roads and pots
And what happens to the rest of the waste? The hundred of thousands of tons of metal, concrete, pipes and other building materials that accumulate during the dismantling process?
Because under German law, the entire plant, including offices and the canteen, are considered radioactive, no single item can be removed before operators can prove it is no longer contaminated. Once considered free of radiation or at least to be below the safety limit, the waste can be disposed of at regular landfills and recycling sites.
Environmental groups and locals criticize this practice, on the grounds that once materials have been recycled, nobody knows where they end up. Concrete from nuclear power plants could be used to pave our roads, while metals could be melted and turned into pots and pans.
“Melted metals could even be turned into braces for kids; they could be contaminated by radiation and no one would know,” he told DW. “I think it would be useful to track where the materials from nuclear sites end up.”
But experts don’t regard post-decommissioning monitoring as necessary.
“The risks are minimal,” Christian Küppers, who specializes in nuclear facility safety at the environmental research center Oeko-Institut, told DW. “The safety limits for radiation correspond to what we are naturally exposed to in the environment,”
All the material from nuclear power plants that expose radiation below 0.01 millisieverts per year can be recycled, Küppers continued.
By way of comparison, the Oeko- Institut says people are exposed to natural radiation of 2.1 millisieverts per year in Germany, and a one-way transatlantic flight exposes those on board to between 0.04 and 0.11 millisieverts of radiation.
From nuclear site to “greenfield”
Once the nuclear power plants have been completely dismantled, all the waste removed and when there is no longer any measurable trace of radiation, the premises can be returned to greenfield status.
At this point, the premises are considered to be regular industrial sites, and can be sold as such.
Likewise pit Konrad. Once the mine has been closed and sealed, which is expected to happens around the year 2100, the land on top of it will also be returned to greenfield space. Theoretically, houses could then be built on it.
Whether anybody would want to live there, is another question, says Monika Hotopp from BGE, the federal company in charge of the long-term storage sites.
Because ultimately, nuclear power has become synonymous with danger. And as Bialk puts it, even when all the plants have been dismantled and the waste stored, the problem won’t have gone away.
“First, the radioactive waste remains dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years. Second, other countries still rely on nuclear power,” he said. “There are more than 50 nuclear power plants in France alone, and if an accident were to happen there, it would affect us, too.”
March 12, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
decommission reactor, Germany |
Leave a comment
CTY Pisces – Photos of a Japanese midget submarine that was sunk off Pearl Harbor on the day of the attack. There’s a hole at the base of the conning tower where an artillery shell penetrated the hull, sinking the sub and killing the crew. Photos courtesy of Terry Kerby, Hawaii Undersea Research Laboratory. August 2003.
15,000 Feet Below the Waves Lurks Trouble: This Dead Russian Submarine Is Nuclear Armed “Unfortunately, the loss of power onboard and the difficult weather conditions were too much for the crew to overcome. On April 12, K-8 sank with some forty crew members aboard, coming to rest at a rough depth of 15,000 feet. The depth made any effort at recovering the submarine, and the nuclear torpedoes, impractical.”
National Interest, by Robert Farley, 10 Mar 19
n April 8, K-8 suffered two fires, resulting in a shutdown of both nuclear reactors. The boat surfaced, and Captain Vsevolod Borisovich Bessonov ordered the crew to abandon ship. Eight crew members, trapped in compartments that were either flooded or burned out, died in the initial incident. Fortunately, a Soviet repair vessel arrived, and took K-8 under tow. However, bad weather made the recover operation a difficult prospect. Much of K-8’s crew reboarded the submarine, and for three days fought a life-and-death struggle to save the boat. Although details remain scarce, there apparently was no opportunity to safely remove the four nuclear torpedoes from K-8, and transfer them to the repair ship.
The Bay of Biscay is one of the world’s great submarine graveyards. In late World War II, British and American aircraft sank nearly seventy German U-boats in the Bay, which joined a handful of Allied and German subs sunk in the region during World War I. On April 12, 1970, a Soviet submarine found the same resting place. Unlike the others, however, K-8 was propelled by two nuclear reactors, and carried four torpedoes tipped by nuclear warheads……… https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/15000-feet-below-waves-lurks-trouble-dead-russian-submarine-nuclear-armed-46652
March 10, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
France, wastes, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
Act would give states voice on nuclear waste dumps, Las Vegas Sun, March 5, 2019 The Nuclear Waste Informed Consent Act would require approval of the governor and impacted local governments and tribes before any money could be spent on a nuclear waste repository from the federal Nuclear Waste Fund. The act would be applicable to all states.
The act was introduced by most of the Nevada delegation, including U.S. Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto and Jacky Rosen and U.S. Reps. Dina Titus, Susie Lee and Steven Horsford, all Democrats.
Members of Nevada’s congressional delegation are attempting to ensure states have a voice in the construction of nuclear waste repositories.
Nevada is home to the dormant Yucca Mountain nuclear waste depository.
Titus, who has introduced a similar bill multiple times in the past, said the federal government should not force a waste site on any community.
“The Trump Administration’s attempt to treat our state as the dumping ground for the nation’s nuclear waste is based on dirty politics, not sound science. No state or community should have a nuclear waste dump forced upon them. I’m reintroducing this legislation as part of our strategy to put an end to the Yucca Mountain project once and for all,” she said in a statement…….
Lee, Horsford and Titus characterized Yucca Mountain as a push to turn Nevada into the nation’s dumping ground.
“I refuse to sit by and watch my community be used as a dumping ground for the nation’s nuclear waste,” Horsford said in a statement. “Yucca Mountain is an ongoing threat to the safety of Nevada families and to the Silver State’s $40 billion tourism industry.” https://lasvegassun.com/news/2019/mar/05/act-would-give-states-voice-on-nuclear-waste-dumps/
March 7, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, USA, wastes |
Leave a comment
U.S. still has no place for spent nuclear fuel, so Maine Yankee’s owner gets millions
The award will help pay for the roughly $10 million per year to maintain the repository at the closed nuclear plant in Wiscasset. PressHerald, BY TUX TURKEL STAFF WRITER 3 Mar 19, For the fourth time since 1998, a federal judge has awarded the owners of three closed nuclear power plants, including Maine Yankee, millions of dollars for the federal government’s failure to remove spent nuclear fuel.
According to Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co., Yankee Atomic Electric Co., and Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co., the owners won a partial summary judgment last week totaling $103.2 million. Maine Yankee’s share is $34.4 million.
The award will help offset the roughly $10 million per year cost of operating an interim spent fuel storage site on plant property in Wiscasset. It will indirectly benefit ratepayers, who otherwise foot the bill. The actual financial impact hasn’t been determined, but is expected to be minimal.
In 2016, for instance, Maine Yankee was awarded about $24.6 million. Roughly $3.6 million of the total award was returned to utilities, including Central Maine Power. The balance, $21 million, went to operate the spent fuel storage site…….
Wayne Norton, president of the three companies urged Congress to authorize funding for a pilot program to remove and consolidate spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste from closed reactor sites, and to complete a review for a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
Maine Yankee operated from 1972 to 1996. Although activists fought for years to close the plant, it was the company’s board that ultimately voted to pull the plug rather than fix expensive, safety-related problems.
Yankee, in Rowe, Massachusetts, closed in 1992. Connecticut Yankee shut down in 1996.
By law, the federal government is charged with coming up with a long-term solution for disposing of radioactive waste from nuclear reactors. It was supposed to begin removing waste in 1998. Facing ongoing public and political opposition, that process hasn’t happened.
Plans to build a permanent waste repository in the Nevada desert were scrapped in 2009 by President Obama. The Trump administration has sent mixed signals about whether it supports reviving Yucca Mountain.
For the foreseeable future, highly radioactive fuel rods are being stored in 60 airtight steel canisters and housed in concrete casks in Wiscasset. Another four canisters hold radioactive steel from the decommissioning process. Maintaining them costs roughly $10 million a year, according to Maine Yankee.
The current award is for a period from 2013 to 2016, and the three companies are seeking an additional $1.2 million in costs. The federal government has 60 days to appeal the award.
Tux Turkel can be contacted at 791-6462 or at:
tturkel@pressherald.com https://www.pressherald.com/2019/02/25/judge-awards-34-million-to-offset-costs-of-storing-spent-fuel-rods-in-wiscasset/
March 4, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, USA, wastes |
2 Comments
Kerr: Army planning to demolish Fort Belvoir’s nuclear plant Inside Nova, BY DAVID KERR 3 Mar 19″……
The Army built another working nuclear plant at Fort Greely in Alaska that at the time was serving as an interceptor missile launch site. They also built one on a Liberty Ship called the U.S.S. Sturgis. That plant, built at Fort Belvoir, in Gunston Cove, was used as a floating power source for facilities in the Panama Canal Zone.
There was also one at the South Pole’s McMurdo Station. It ran for almost 12 years. Alas, all of these sites ran up against two problems. First, they turned out to be more expensive to operate than expected. Secondly, by the early 1970s anxiety was growing over nuclear power. Was it such a good idea to have small nuclear plants? It didn’t sound safe.
The Army built another working nuclear plant at Fort Greely in Alaska that at the time was serving as an interceptor missile launch site. They also built one on a Liberty Ship called the U.S.S. Sturgis. That plant, built at Fort Belvoir, in Gunston Cove, was used as a floating power source for facilities in the Panama Canal Zone.
There was also one at the South Pole’s McMurdo Station. It ran for almost 12 years. Alas, all of these sites ran up against two problems. First, they turned out to be more expensive to operate than expected. Secondly, by the early 1970s anxiety was growing over nuclear power. Was it such a good idea to have small nuclear plants? It didn’t sound safe.
As for the South Pole nuclear facility, unlike its counterparts in the U.S., that was demolished almost immediately. Roughly 12,000 pounds of radioactive material were shipped to a secure nuclear waste site in the United States.
Just how safe this procedure was, given the site’s remoteness and the absence of guidelines for handling radioactive debris at the time, remains an open question.
As for the SM-1, when the core was removed, Army engineers decontaminated the underground liquid radioactive waste tanks and filled them with concrete. They then sealed the reactor dome, removed the underground piping, tore down some uncontaminated structures and began a decades-long effort to monitor and continually assess the site.
They did the same at Fort Greely.
Now, the facilities are getting old and since they’re still radioactive, the Army wants to go ahead and demolish these facilities. But this is not your average construction contract or your average hazardous waste management project. These are nuclear facilities; everything about them has special requirements. …….
The SM-1 and its sister facilities were a part of our country’s early commitment to nuclear power and all that it might accomplish. Our nuclear industry learned a lot from their operations. However, while they were relatively easy to build, it’s turned out to be a lot more difficult to get rid of them than anyone ever would have imagined in the 1950s. https://www.insidenova.com/opinion/columnists/kerr-army-planning-to-demolish-fort-belvoir-s-nuclear-plant/article_f8b43228-3d4d-11e9-8098-eb75c50b06d9.html
March 4, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
decommission reactor, USA |
Leave a comment
|
‘Reset’ on nation’s nuclear waste policy includes Yucca Mountain By Gary Martin / Las Vegas Review-Journal
February 27, 2019 WASHINGTON — A panel of scientists are urging a “reset” of the nation’s stalled nuclear waste management system and recommendations to manage and store the material that include using Yucca Mountain as a potential repository.
The proposals were included in a 126-page report, “Reset of America’s Nuclear Waste Management,” that addresses the buildup of highly radioactive waste from commercial power plants and military programs stranded at 75 sites around the country.
Scientists involved with the report were on Capitol Hill on Wednesday to discuss a way forward, or a reset of current management and policy to address the lack of safe storage for the waste.
The report, released in January, includes development of a consensus-based siting process, but one that would still include Yucca Mountain as a candidate.
The inclusion of the site located 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas would continue the travesty of the 1987 decision by Congress that singled out “Yucca Mountain as the only site to be considered for development of a national nuclear waste repository,” said Steve Frishman, a technical consultant to the state of Nevada.
He noted that state, local and tribal leaders, as well as business groups and environmentalists in Nevada, are staunchly opposed to permanent waste storage in Nevada, and claim that the site is unsafe despite Department of Energy studies and recommendations.
Opposition to Yucca Mountain has led to an impasse on storing nuclear waste.
“The site for the proposed Yucca Mountain repository was formally selected in 2002,” the reported noted. “Today, the fate of that site is in political limbo.”
The report further noted that there is “no clear path forward” to manage nuclear waste produced by commercial power plants.
The report compiled by scientists at Stanford University and George Washington University recommends taking the management of nuclear waste storage away from the DOE and creating either a new single-purpose nuclear waste management organization, or a non-profit corporation owned by the nuclear utility industry to handle the waste.
Many of the topics covered in the reset report were also covered, with differing emphasis, by the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future in 2012, Frishman said. The commission did not consider Yucca Mountain as a potential repository.
The report comes as Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., plans a push in the Senate to resolve the three-decade impasse that has left nuclear waste piled up at generating plants across the country……..
Former Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., told the Review-Journal in an interview this month that Yucca Mountain would never be developed because of the astronomical cost to complete the facility. He suggested utility companies place the waste in dry casks and bury them on site. …..
President Donald Trump has proposed restarting the licensing process in his past two budget proposals to Congress. The House also passed a law to streamline the procedure, but all attempts died in the Senate, which stripped out funding in spending bills and never took up the House bill.
If the licensing process restarts, Nevada has filed 218 “contentions,” or objections that would have to be settled before a construction permit is issued.
Experts testified before the House in 2016 that that process could take three to five years.
Meanwhile, two private groups have filed applications with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for permits to build interim storage facilities in New Mexico and Texas.
Alexander said he favors developing interim storage sites while a strategy on permanent storage can be settled. He told his subcommittee last year that he views Yucca Mountain as part of the solution. https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/local-nevada/reset-on-nations-nuclear-waste-policy-includes-yucca-mountain-1606813/
Contact Gary Martin at gmartin@reviewjournal.com or 202-662-7390. Follow @garymartindc on Twitter.
|
|
March 2, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, USA, wastes |
Leave a comment
Nuclear waste meeting in Swansea is cancelled and replaced with an online event Wales Online, By Robert DallingSenior Reporter 1 MAR 2019
It was one of a series of meetings taking place across the country to discuss where to bury the country’s most dangerous radioactive waste.
The organisation that had planned a meeting in Swansea about where to store nuclear waste has cancelled it, and said it’s staging an online event instead.
Government-run Radioactive Waste Management was behind the meetings in Swansea and Llandudno to discuss where to create a geological disposal facility for burying the UK’s stockpile of the most dangerous radioactive waste.
No details of any potential sites were made public and it was understood that the body was seeking “a willing host community” where radioactive waste could be stored hundreds of metres underground.
The Swansea meeting was planned for Tuesday, March 1
A statement from the firm read: “Radioactive Waste Management (RWM) respects the views expressed by Swansea Council in their proposed motion (for consideration on 28 February) about hosting a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) in their area.
“RWM also reaffirms that none of its regional events, including the one for Swansea , is linked in any way to where a GDF might be sited and no site anywhere in England or Wales has been targeted, proposed or chosen. A GDF can only be sited in Wales if a community is willing to host it…….
It is expected that the process of selecting an underground site and going through the planning and construction process will take decades with any chosen site first receiving waste in the 2040s.
The Government said communities interested in hosting a GDF could receive up to £1m a year initially and up to £2.5m a year if deep borehole investigations took place.
Swansea Lib Dem councillor Peter Black criticised the move to cancel the physical meeting.
He said: “I think we should have met them face to face so as to get some clarity as to what exactly they were proposing.
“A webinar means that many people who might want to contribute to this debate, who are not on the internet, will now be excluded.”
Leader of Swansea Council, Rob Stewart said: “I’m pleased that RWM has listened to the very strong representations that we have made and cancelled this meeting in Swansea.
“We note that they have replaced it with an online event so I will make it clear that we will not let up on in our fight until the Swansea Bay area is ruled-out as a potential location for a dump for radioactive waste.
“The reaction of most councillors, our local residents and businesses is clear – nuclear waste is not and never will be welcome here and we will not allow it.” https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/nuclear-waste-meeting-swansea-cancelled-15901315
March 2, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
politics, UK, wastes |
Leave a comment
Fierce opposition to recycling radioactive soil from Fukushima http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201902260058.html, THE ASAHI SHIMBUN, February 26, 2019 How to dispose of mountains of soil contaminated by radiation from the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster poses a massive headache for the central government.
Officials had long insisted that contaminated surface soil removed after the triple meltdown at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant would eventually be stored outside of Fukushima Prefecture.
According to one estimate, the total volume of such soil will reach 14 million cubic meters by fiscal 2021. Local entities outside of Fukushima are understandably hesitant about serving as host to such vast quantities of possibly hazardous dirt.
Officials in Tokyo are now hoping to sway local governments to act as hosts by proposing reuse of the contaminated soil for public works projects under certain conditions.
One requirement would be that soil radiation levels below 8,000 becquerels per kilogram, the standard used by the government in classifying whether the waste material requires special treatment, could be used for various construction projects.
This poses a dilemma for Fukushima Prefecture, which fears local residents will be stuck with the problem despite repeated pledges by the government to move all contaminated soil from the prefecture.
Work got under way four years ago to move contaminated soil to intermediate storage facilities in Fukushima Prefecture. As of Feb. 19, the volume of soil transported to those facilities totaled 2.35 million cubic meters.
Initially, the government set a target date of March 2045 for moving all of the contaminated soil outside of Fukushima to a permanent storage facility.
However, discussions have yet to begin on where to build the structure.
Koji Yamada, an Environment Ministry official who has been involved in the issue, conceded it will not be easy to find a candidate municipality for the facility.
“We are now at the stage of trying to obtain understanding from a national perspective,” he said.
Ministry officials say that reusing contaminated soil to reduce the volume that eventually will have to be moved to the final storage facility could win favor from some municipalities.
A panel of experts set up by the Environment Ministry agreed in June 2016 that moving the entire volume of contaminated soil to a final storage facility is unrealistic.
The panel suggested that reducing the volume of contaminated soil by reusing portions deemed safe under radiation standards now in place seemed to offer the best option in finding a candidate site for the final storage facility.
It also proposed ways in which the soil could be reused; for example, in public works projects where the commissioning authority was clearly a responsible body.
The panel also proposed using the soil for the foundations of roads and embankments. It said sufficient quantities were available to ensure stable maintenance over many years.
When the panel met again last December, the members were briefed on the best-case scenario for the development of technology to reduce radiation levels in the soil. The most optimistic forecast was that as much as 99 percent of the debris could eventually be reused.
Under that scenario, only 30,000 cubic meters, or about 0.2 percent of the total volume, would have to be moved to the final storage facility to be buried there.
While Environment Ministry officials say that reusable treated soil would be considered for locations both within and outside Fukushima Prefecture, the only specific proposals made to date have been limited to three municipalities in Fukushima.
Local residents in two of those municipalities, one of which is Nihonmatsu, have mounted petition drives and other activities to block the reuse of contaminated soil in their areas. They contend that allowing such plans to go ahead would be at odds with government promises to store the soil outside of the prefecture.
The fact remains that the bulk of the contaminated soil is stored in Fukushima Prefecture. However, seven other prefectures also have a combined 330,000 cubic meters stored at various locations, such as parks and farmland.
Since August 2018, the Environment Ministry has been trying to determine whether using contaminated soil for land reclamation projects would prove detrimental to the health of local residents.
It has conducted field trials in Nasu, Tochigi Prefecture, and on the grounds of a facility operated by the Japan Atomic Energy Agency in Tokai, Ibaraki Prefecture.
But Nasu resident Masato Tashiro, who has been following the issue, was highly critical of the six-month period authorized to confirm the safety of such soil.
“That is way too short to make such a judgment, considering the fact the soil will be buried for such a long time,” Tashiro said. “Residents fear their health may be impaired over the long-term.”
(This article was written by Teru Okumura and Shintaro Egawa.)
February 28, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Japan, opposition to nuclear, wastes |
Leave a comment
L’Express 22nd Feb 2019 , Sooner or later, EDF will have to close power plants. Facing the corporation is a vast building project with many unknowns. And in the middle flows the Meuse.
Nestled in one of its loops, a few kilometers from the Belgian border, the two cooling towers of the Chooz nuclear power 
plant spew their plumes of white smoke. On the other side of the river, under the wooded hillside that has taken the colors of autumn, EDF is leading the dismantling of Chooz A.
Shut down since 1991 this reactor, installed in an\ artificial cavern, saw its installations gradually dismantled and
evacuated. Still to settle the fate of the tank. Perched on a metal bridge over a deep pool where she was dipped, a handful of Swedish engineers from the American company Westinghouse remotely maneuver the articulated arms of a robot that cut it. A long work, which must last until 2022. After which, the cave Chooz A will be filled with sand, for eternity.
https://lexpansion.lexpress.fr/actualite-economique/les-travaux-d-hercule-du-demantelement-nucleaire_2040298.html
February 25, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
decommission reactor, France |
Leave a comment
Risk of terrorism at radioactive waste site kept secret from residents near earmarked sites, Jade Gailberger, Federal Political Reporter, The Advertiser February 24,
The risk of terrorist activity at a radioactive waste site, including the removal of drums for use in a “dirty bomb”, has been kept secret from residents near two sites earmarked for a new national dump.
As the communities of Hawker and Kimba remain divided on the site selection for a new waste site, documents obtained under Freedom of Information laws reveal the Defence Department identified a potential risk of terrorist activity at a dump at Woomera.
The revelation has cemented the security concerns of residents, who say they have been ignored by Government officials.
The now closed Koolymilka dump, situated on Defence land at Woomera, was licensed for temporary radioactive waste storage but has not taken new material since 2010.
An emergency response plan for the site, which still houses waste that is anticipated to be transferred to a national facility, details scenarios that may affect it including:
-
- TERRORISTS removing drums to make a “dirty bomb”.
- MISSILE and aircraft strikes, fire, flood or a storm in Woomera that could damage the building and cause contamination if drums ruptured.
- CIVILIAN protest activity.
Defence has said it has no responsibility to inform the public of the risks because the new waste dump is an Industry Department project.
Kimba farmer Peter Woolford, who is opposed to radioactive waste storage on agricultural land, said security, terrorism and fire concerns at a national site had been raised but “fobbed off” by officials who claimed it “would be safe”.
“The (Industry) Department continually says it is going to be open and transparent but you have to obtain FOI documents to get the full story,” he said. “It’s an issue that the department should be … explaining.”
Centre Alliance Senator Rex Patrick said communities had been denied information needed to make an informed decision about a dump in their region.
At a Senate estimates hearing last week, Mr Patrick asked if the Industry Department had briefed the communities about potential terrorism. Industry Minister Matt Canavan said: “I have never been provided with any advice that this is at all a risk … this has never been raised as an issue”.
The Industry Department said the new dump would pose “no security or safety risk to the community” and “significant detail” on safety and security had been made public.
The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation said 14 of 45 jobs at the new dump would be security.
February 25, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
AUSTRALIA, secrets,lies and civil liberties, wastes |
Leave a comment
Radioactive waste bill gets preliminary approval in Utah Senate, Deseret News, By Amy Joi O’DonoghueFebruary 20, 2019 SALT LAKE CITY — EnergySolutions is seeking assurances from Utah lawmakers that if it meets disposal requirements and the approval of regulators, it can bury depleted uranium at its Tooele County facility.
That is how Sen. Scott Sandall, R-Tremonton, explained the genesis of HB220, which received a 23-6 vote on its second reading Wednesday in the Utah Senate.
Sandall said the bill, in its fourth version, does not guarantee acceptance of the waste or site suitability but rather ensures that if the company continues to spend money on a site-specific analysis that its investment will not be in vain.
Critics say not only will the measure, if passed into law, give a potential green light on millions of tons of depleted uranium coming to Utah, it opens the door for acceptance of even “hotter’ waste……..
The bill needs another vote in the Senate, House approval and the governor’s signature before it becomes law. https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900056657/radioactive-waste-bill-gets-preliminary-approval-in-utah-senate.html
February 23, 2019
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
depleted uranium, USA, wastes |
Leave a comment
nuclear-news 