IPFM 20th Aug 2018, On 31 July 2018, Japan’s Atomic Energy Commission (JAEC) issued a new
policy paper, The Basic Principles on Japan’s Utilization of Plutonium,
which for the first time, stated that “Japan will reduce the size of its
plutonium stockpile.”
A similar statement was included in the new Strategic
Energy Plan (in Japanese) by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry
(METI) that was adopted on 3 July by the Cabinet of the Japanese
government. Japan’s plutonium stockpile, according to the data released by
the JAEC at the same time as the new policy, is about 47.3 tons of
plutonium (as of the end of 2017), of which 36.7 tons is overseas (21.2
tons in UK and 15.5 tons in France) and 10.5 tons in Japan. The Rokkasho
reprocessing plant, with a design separation capacity of 8 tons of
plutonium per year, on which stated construction in 1993, is currently
planned to be completed in 2021. Plans call for the J-MOX plant to be
completed in 2022 to turn this plutonium into MOX fuel for light water
(LWR) nuclear power reactors. http://fissilematerials.org/blog/2018/08/japans_new_policy_on_its_.html
Energy Voice 20th Aug 2018,The site of Britain’s worst nuclear accident is to be dismantled as part
of the wider decommissioning of the Sellafield nuclear plant. The planned
demolition of the 360 foot structure will begin later this year. A giant
crane has been constructed to bring it down. The 152m crane is the tallest
structure ever built at Sellafield, just six metres shorter than the
Blackpool Tower. It will begin work this autumn, removing and lowering
chunks of the chimney cut out using diamond wire saws. Duncan Thompson, the
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority’s Sellafield Programme director, said:
“The complex task of decommissioning and demolishing the Windscale Pile
One Stack has reached an important stage. It is another example of the
ingenuity that goes into solving the UK’s decommissioning problems. https://www.energyvoice.com/otherenergy/nuclear/179544/watch-sellafield-nuclear-chimney-to-be-demolished/
Finnish firms target Chinese radwaste market, WNN, 23 August 2018
Finnish utility Fortum and consulting engineering company AINS Group have signed a memorandum of understanding to provide radioactive waste management services to China’s rapidly expanding nuclear industry. Through the MoU, the companies will provide services for the management of low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste in China. The agreement also enhances cooperation between the firms and other Finnish companies and organisations, including VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd and Posiva Solutions.
Based on expected installed nuclear generating capacity of 50 GWe by 2020, China’s annual used fuel arisings will amount to about 1200 tonnes at that stage, the cumulative total being about 14,000 tonnes then.
“As China becomes increasingly mindful of environmental integrity and reduces its use of fossil fuels, [its] zero-carbon nuclear energy solution requires enhanced focus on radioactive waste management,” the companies said in a joint statement. “Finnish expertise has an important role in disposing of Chinese radioactive waste and building a cleaner future together with shared respect for nature and the environment.”……….Finnish waste management company Posiva – jointly owned by Fortum and TVO – launched Posiva Solutions in June 2016. The business, it said, would “focus on the marketing of the know-how accumulated from the design, research and development efforts in the final disposal of used nuclear fuel, as well as on associated consulting services”. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Finnish-firms-target-Chinese-radwaste-market
The JAEA will launch actual fuel removal operations this month if it finds the work can be conducted safely. It was initially planned to begin late last month but was postponed after problems plagued the equipment test.
In the final exercise, control rods instead of real fuel assemblies will be removed from a container filled with sodium coolant by using the aforementioned equipment. The rods will be then packed in cans after the sodium is rinsed off and transported to a water-filled pool.
It has not been decided when the exercise will end, the agency said.
The decommissioning process for the glitch-riddled Monju is slated to take 30 years.
In the first phase, 530 assemblies in the reactor and a storage container outside the reactor will be moved to the water pool by December 2022. The JAEA has so far transferred only two fuel assemblies to the pool — one in 2008 and the other in 2009.
Navy, Civilian Nuclear Regulators Struggling Over How to Dismantle Former USS Enterprise, USNI News ,By: Ben Werner,
THE PENTAGON — A brewing regulatory fight between the Navy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission over who should oversee a possible commercial contract to dismantle the hull of the former USS Enterprise (CVN-65) could ultimately cause the project’s price tag to balloon well above the current $1 billion estimate.
Controlling costs and preventing a log-jam of nuclear refueling and maintenance work on decommissioned nuclear surface ships and submarines were cited as reasons the Navy would consider using a private contractor to dismantle the nation’s first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, according to an August Government Accountability Office report.
However, civilian regulators with the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) aren’t keen on overseeing the dismantlement of Enterprise.
Using a commercial shipyard to take Enterprise apart would potentially save hundreds of millions of dollars and shave as many as five years off the project completion time, according to the GAO.
Fierce debate sparked by ‘nuclear mud’ digging on Bristol Channel coast, Mud is being dug up and moved from Hinkley Point nuclear power station, Bristol Live By David Williamson, Daniel Chipperfield , 16 Aug 18
Plans to dig up mud from Hinkley Point nuclear sites on the Somerset coast and dump it in South Wales have been met with controversy.
Work will start next month dredging roughly 300,000 tonnes which will be moved to land near Cardiff, but protesters say there’s a chance the mud could be contaminated with radiation, making it unsafe…. Wale’s Online’s poltiical editor David Williamson has been investigating the issue as protesters call on Natural resources Wales to suspend the licence for the dredging.
Hinkley Point A Stopped Producing Electricity In 2000 After 35 Years Of Operations; Hinkley Point B Has Been Generating Electricity Since 1976.
EDF Now Wants To Take Mud And Sediment So It Can Drill Six Vertical Shafts For The Cooling Water System For The New Hinkley Point C Power Station.
The Energy Giant Claims The Material Is “No Different To The Sediment Already At The Cardiff Grounds” And Is “Not Classed As Radioactive Under UK Law”.
But Campaigners Do Not Believe Detailed The Tests That Have Been Carried Out Are Sufficiently Thorough…….Dr Richard Bramhall Of The Low Level Radiation Campaign – A Former Member Of The UK Government’s Committee Examining Radiation Risks Of Internal Emitters (CERRIE) – Has Voiced Worries About The Tests.
In A Letter To NRW He Raised Concerns The Tests Did Not Assess Whether Uranium, Plutonium And Other Alpha-Emitting Elements Were Present In Minute “Particulate” Form.
As Larger Fragments Break Up, Any Given Amount Of Particulate Matter Will Become More Mobile, Be More Easily Inhaled Into The Deep Lung And The Lymphatic System, And Will Emit More Radiation,” He Said.
Tim Deere-Jones, A Self-Employed Marine Pollution Consultant, Argues Years Of Discharges From The Existing Nuclear Stations Mean More Detailed Study Is Needed.
He Said: “Those Sediments Had Been In Receipt Of Discharges From The Hinkley A Nuclear Station And The Hinkley B Nuclear Station… If You’ve Got 300,000 Tonnes Of That Stuff Being Dredged And Dumped So Close [To South Wales] You Need To Know Exactly What You’ve Got In It In Terms Of Radioactivity.”
Tim Deere-Jones, A Self-Employed Marine Pollution Consultant, Argues Years Of Discharges From The Existing Nuclear Stations Mean More Detailed Study Is Needed.
He Said: “Those Sediments Had Been In Receipt Of Discharges From The Hinkley A Nuclear Station And The Hinkley B Nuclear Station… If You’ve Got 300,000 Tonnes Of That Stuff Being Dredged And Dumped So Close [To South Wales] You Need To Know Exactly What You’ve Got In It In Terms Of Radioactivity.”
FirstEnergy takes “unwelcome” step towards plant closures, WNN, 16 August 2018
FirstEnergy Solutions Inc (FES) has taken its next step towards the closure of three nuclear power plants, filing plans related to the decommissioning with the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The Beaver Valley, Davis-Besse and Perry plants are scheduled to close during the next three years unless legislative policy solutions can be found to keep them operating.
The company on 15 August said it had filed with the NRC details of the training programme for the professionals who will supervise the removal and on-site storage of fuel from the plants after their shut-down.
“Today’s NRC submission is a necessary milestone for us but not a welcome one,” Don Moul, FES president and chief nuclear officer, said………. A solution must be reached by mid-2019, when FES must either purchase the fuel required for Davis-Besse’s next refuelling or proceed with the shutdown. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/FirstEnergy-takes-unwelcome-step-towards-plant-clo
A community vote on the proposed nuclear waste dump on South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula has been delayed after an Aboriginal group won a court injunction.
Key points:
The Federal Government has shortlisted Kimba for Australia’s future nuclear waste dump
The Barngarla Aboriginal people have won an injunction to halt a community vote
The Supreme Court will hear the case next Thursday
The Barngarla people, the traditional owners of much of the Eyre Peninsula, applied for an injunction to halt the vote in South Australia’s Supreme Court, arguing it contravened the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.
Lawyers for the Aboriginal group argued the District Council of Kimba did not have the power to conduct the postal ballot, which was due to begin on Monday.
The Federal Government has shortlisted two sites near Kimba as possible locations for a low-level radioactive waste storage facility, along with four other sites around Australia
The lawyer representing the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation, Daniel O’Gorman SC, told the court his clients had no issue with the vote going ahead, they just wanted to be included in it.
“That’s all they want, they just want to be included, they don’t want to be treated any differently because their rights are Aboriginal rights,” he said.
The court heard the majority of the 211 native title holders lived outside the boundary of the Kimba District Council and that excluding them from the vote had the effect “of nullifying or impairing their rights”.
But Michael Burnett, representing the District Council of Kimba, told the court its power to conduct the postal vote came from the Local Government Act.
He said the council wanted to conduct the vote in a fair manner and decided the fairest manner was to comply with “the statutory procedure that applies in the case of elections”.
“It’s not a vote that has direct consequences … it’s part of a range of consultations that will be taken into account,” he said.
Mr Burnett said there were direct consultations taking place with native title holders about the proposed sites, a claim which Mr O’Gorman rejected.
“They’re getting two bites of the cherry and therein lies the exclusion, [the native title holders are] only getting one,” Mr O’Gorman said.
Mr Burnett questioned why the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation had waited until August to seek an injunction when they had known about the vote since May.
But Mr O’Gorman said the corporation had written to the District Council of Kimba on six occasions seeking to be included in the postal vote and council had only made its final decision on July 27.
The vote of around 800 residents who live in Kimba will be delayed until after a full court hearing next Thursday.
State lawmakers maintained they will have a say in a proposed facility to store high-level nuclear waste near Carlsbad and Hobbs, despite an opinion issued by New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas suggesting New Mexico will have a limited role in licensing the project.
New Mexico Sen. Jeff Steinborn (D-36), who chairs the New Mexico Radioactive and Hazardous Waste Committee said Balderas’ opinion was informative but did not preclude lawmakers from preventing the facility from operating.
The committee convened in May to study the project proposed by New Jersey-based Holtec International, and held its third meeting on Wednesday at University of New Mexico-Los Alamos.
Opposed to the project, Steinborn said state lawmakers owe their constituents a full review of the proposal.
More: Who is Holtec? International company touts experience in nuclear storage
“I think it’s kind of a troubling deficiency in the government if the state doesn’t have to give consent to have something like this foisted upon it,” he said. “The State of New Mexico owes it to the people to look at every aspect of it.”
In Balderas’ response to multiple questions asked by Steinborn, he cited numerous past cases that Balderas said created a precedent that state governments have almost no role in federal licensing for nuclear facilities.
More: Attorney general: New Mexico has little say in Holtec proposal
He said the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has the sole authority to license the facility, and the state’s authority would likely begin once it went into operation, providing some recourse if something goes wrong.
“While it is abundantly clear that the state cannot license or otherwise directly regulate interim storage facilities, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that state tort law can provide a remedy for injuries suffered as a result of nuclear plant operation,” Balderas wrote.
But Steinborn said he and the committee intended to make their voices heard well before the plant could go into operation.
He said even if the federal NRC does issue Holtec the needed license, the state could fight back by blocking utilities and infrastructure such as water and transportation access – cutting off the facility’s ability to operate. Continue reading →
Thousands of tonnes of material needs to be dredged from the Hinkley Point C building site in Somerset.
The developer wants to dispose of 300,000 tonnes of mud across the Bristol Channel in the Cardiff Grounds, a little over a mile out to sea from Cardiff Bay.
Natural Resources Wales (NRW) will monitor it, but it has been delayed.
We were initially told by the licence holder, NNB Genco, that they intended to begin the dredging/disposal operations on 16 August,” said NRW’s John Wheadon.
“We were subsequently informed that, due to external constraints, the dredging is now expected to begin in early September, although no specific date has yet been provided.”
An enormous floating dock given to Russia by Italy has been put to use transferring a radioactive barge from the Zvezdochka Shipyard in Severodvinsk to safe storage at the Sayda Bay facility near Murmansk. by Charles Digges
An enormous floating dock given to Russia by Italy has been put to use transferring a radioactive barge from the Zvezdochka Shipyard in Severodvinsk to safe storage at the Sayda Bay facility near Murmansk.
The radioactively contaminated barge, called the PM-124, was built in 1960 and used as a floating dock for servicing nuclear submarines in the Soviet Northern Fleet. Slated for use until 1985, it continued collecting fuel assemblies for another 20 years. Since 2005, the fuel assemblies have been removed, but but for a time the barge was used used for storing other forms of solid radioactive waste at Zvezdochka.
While nearly all decommissioned submarines from the Soviet Northern Fleet have been dismantled by a variety of international agreements, a number of other military nuclear hazards still lurk on Russia’s Kola Peninsula, and the PM-124 was one of them.The Itarus is one of two nuclear-waste transport vessels that Italy provided for Russia under its Global Partnership obligations. The other, called the Rossita, a €70 million container ship, is now engaged in ferrying spent nuclear submarine fuel away from Andreyeva Bay, another major radioactive hazard left over after the Cold War.
For its part, the Itarus, which arrived in Russia in 2016, was designed specifically for shuttling reactor compartments from dismantled nuclear submarines to Sayda Bay, a facility run by SevRAO, the northern branch of RosRAO, one of Russia’s state nuclear waste handling contractor.
Rosatom has also billed it as a valuable tool in retrieving nuclear reactors and other radioactive debris intentionally scuttled in Arctic waters by the Soviet Navy.
No storage site for these underwater nuclear artifacts has yet been selected, but the Russian government has promised for years to raise them, and Rosatom’s submarine decommissioning chief, Anatoly Zakharchyov, has often suggested the Itarus, with its submersible dock features, would be handy for this endeavor.
In 2014, the Russian government revealed that the sunken waste in the Arctic includes 17,000 containers of radioactive waste, 19 ships containing radioactive waste, 14 nuclear reactors, including five that still contain spent nuclear fuel; 735 other pieces of radioactively contaminated heavy machinery, and the K-27 nuclear submarine with its two reactors loaded with nuclear fuel.
Joint Russian and Norwegian expeditions to the K-27 and another sunken sub, the K-159, suggest neither pose imminent contamination risks. But experts on both sides agree it’s better to get them out of the water sooner than later, before radioactive leakage becomes an urgent problem.
Zakharchyov has said the reinvigoration of the Gremikha naval nuclear waste storage facility could be a critical storage site for undersea nuclear hazards eventually netted by the Itarus.
Mersea Life August 2018 ,Andy Blowers: It’s interesting to see how government works. The other day I was invited to give evidence to the Parliamentary Select Committee on Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. They were pondering the Draft National Policy Statement for Geological Disposal Infrastructure. Arcane, perhaps, but undoubtedly important and a riveting topic for anyone concerned with the future of our environment.
Although I said what I wanted to say, I felt my words went into a void, rather like the geological void that was the topic of debate. Recently the Government published its policy for the development of a deep geological repository in which to bury all the most dangerous nuclear wastes created by its military and civil nuclear programmes.
That something needs to be done is not in doubt but a repository must be in suitable geology, safely engineered and must achieve public support – conditions unlikely to be forthcoming in the near future.
The problem of managing the wastes that already exist will be difficult enough. But, the idea that a repository can also be used to accommodate the unknowable quantity of dangerous wastes from a new build programme is surely preposterous.
Yet this is what the Government proposes, stating its belief that ‘effective arrangements will exist to manage and dispose of the waste from new build power stations’.
How can they possibly know? There is no foreseeable solution to the problem of wastes from new nuclear power stations, other than leaving them in stores scattered around our coasts at vulnerable, low-lying sites like Bradwell for the indefinite future.
If Bradwell B is ever built these wastes will be left, according to the Government’s own estimates, until at least the turn of the twenty-third century, that is seven generations from now. The future physical conditions on the site and the state of society so far away is simply undefinable. It is unethical and should be unthinkable to present such an intractable problem to our children, grandchildren and generations beyond.
New build wastes take a very long time to cool before they can be ready for disposal. On current evaluations it could require between 60 and 140 years before disposal. So, let’s assume that Bradwell B starts generating in 2030 and continues for 60 years until 2090. It will then be between 2150 and 2230 before all its wastes could be disposed of, assuming,of course, there is a repository available. The simple truth is we have absolutely no idea how to estimate, let alone manage, the spent fuel and other dangerous wastes that will arise from a new nuclear power station at
Bradwell.
Herald 11th Aug 2018, Police Scotland is expecting a £4 million windfall from external
organisations for protecting nuclear waste shipments and policing sporting
events. The force has made almost £1 million this year so far for
providing logistical support for nuclear waste transfers and policing
football matches. The ongoing logistical support — known as Operation
Ailey — is understood to involve traffic management and public order
protection for nuclear waste travelling from the decommissioned Dounreay
nuclear plant for reprocessing at Sellafield in Cumbria. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16412532.nuclear-convoys-and-sports-give-police-4m-windfall/
opposition in New Mexico to siting the facility there, and opposition along any potential transportation routes, would doom the idea
“It’s extremely troubling because they are going to be handling a decommissioning fund of almost a billion dollars,” Tauro said. “This really points to the need absolutely for the independent oversight board. To lend this whole deal transparency and independence, and having people on that board who have absolutely nothing to gain.”
Once a privately held company is in charge of decommissioning, she said, transparency will be lost.
A high-level nuclear waste storage facility doesn’t exist yet, since the federal government stopped its attempts in 2011 to develop the Yucca Mountain facility in Nevada in the face of local and regional opposition.
So, for the foreseeable future, nuclear plants’ spent fuel must be stored on site of both operating and closed plants.
But Holtec International, which is trying to buy the Oyster Creek plant in Lacey Township for decommissioning, has an application before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to open a short-term facility in New Mexico. It proposes to store high-level nuclear waste there, such as spent fuel rods from nuclear plants. A Holtec spokesperson did not respond to requests for information.
Holtec would likely try to transport Oyster Creek’s waste to the New Mexico facility. That and the fact that Holtec manufactures casks for storage of nuclear waste bring up conflicts of interest, said Clean Water Action Board Chairwoman Janet Tauro, of Brick Township. She has been fighting to get the Oyster Creek plant closed for years.
Tauro said whoever does the decommissioning should have to choose the best and safest cask and storage options, not the ones that will make the most money for them.
“How do you do that if it’s all your stuff, if Holtec is managing the decommissioning and buying their own casks and choosing to store at a Holtec-owned site in New Mexico?” asked Tauro.
Tauro is especially concerned about Holtec casks, since some of them malfunctioned at the decommissioned San Onofre nuclear plant in San Diego County, California, she said
NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said the problem was discovered Feb. 20 “during a mandatory pre-loading inspection of multipurpose canisters, the stainless-steel casks that hold the spent fuel.”
He said it involved a broken shim standoff bolt inside the cask. The loose bolt — about 4 inches long and 7/16th of an inch in diameter — was found in the bottom of one of the casks.
It was shipped back to Holtec, Sheehan said. Holtec inspected other canisters at its facility in Camden and found another with a broken standoff bolt.
On March 6, Southern California Edison, which owns San Onofre, halted its dry cask loading activities. The site subsequently resumed that work, using casks with a different approved shim design, Sheehan said.
Other plants that have casks with the same design are Vermont Yankee, Dresden, Grand Gulf, Hatch, Columbia, Watts Bar and Callaway.
The New Mexico storage facility is unlikely to become a reality, said New Jersey Sierra Club Director Jeff Tittel, since it would require moving high-level radioactive waste across the country.Sheehan said Vermont Yankee in Vernon, Vermont, and Oyster Creek are the only nuclear plants ever proposed to be sold for decommissioning.
However, in 2010, Exelon transferred the license for Zion Nuclear Power Station in Zion, Illinois, to EnergySolutions of Salt Lake City to do the decommissioning, and will take the license back after the work is done. In that case, Exelon continues to be responsible for the spent fuel.
“Years ago we called them ‘mobile Chernobyls,’” said Tittel of the idea of moving such waste by truck or train. His organization has also fought to close the plant for decades. Tittel predicted opposition in New Mexico to siting the facility there, and opposition along any potential transportation routes, would doom the idea
Tauro is also concerned about Holtec’s plans to subcontract the decommissioning work to Comprehensive Decommissioning International LLC, of Camden. CDI was formed earlier this year as a joint venture company of Holtec and SNC-Lavalin.
SNC-Lavalin has been charged with corruption, fraud and bribery in Canada, according to Canadian media reports.
“It’s extremely troubling because they are going to be handling a decommissioning fund of almost a billion dollars,” Tauro said. “This really points to the need absolutely for the independent oversight board. To lend this whole deal transparency and independence, and having people on that board who have absolutely nothing to gain.”
Once a privately held company is in charge of decommissioning, she said, transparency will be lost.
“NRC staff, both in our regional offices and headquarters in Rockville, Maryland, closely monitored the actions being taken by plant owners and Holtec, the cask vendor, in response to the issue,” Sheehan said. “Holtec and the plant owners performed root-cause and extent-of-condition analyses. Those assessments determined that the heat flow inside the casks would not be adversely impacted by the problem. We are still reviewing the issue.”
Penarth Times 10th Aug 2018, A start is to be made on Thursday next week on the controversial dumping of
320,000 tonnes of allegedly radioactive mud in the Bristol Channel just a
mile off the Penarth sea front. The mud comes from the vicinity of the
Hinkley Point nuclear reactor site where a third nuclear power station is
now being built by the French energy company EDF – and will be dumped at
the so-called “Cardiff Grounds” site .
EDF has given the Welsh Labour Government’s environmental arm – Natural Resources Wales – the
absolute bare minimum of notice. EDF is required by its licence to give at
least 10 days’ notice of the commencement of the mud-dumping operations
off Penarth – and EDF has given exactly the minimum amount of notice
it’s required to give – just 10 days – and no more. https://penarthnews.wordpress.com/2018/08/10/nuclear-mud-starts-being-dumped-off-penarth-next-thursday/
