Japanese government to start campaign to encourage hosting of nuclear wastes
Government to start campaign on nuclear waste disposal sites , Japan Times, 9 Mar 15 KYODO The government plans to launch a campaign in major cities to promote the need for permanent disposal facilities for high-level nuclear waste from power plants, sources close to the matter said Saturday.
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s administration is looking to restart nuclear plants shut after the Fukushima disaster, and has faced criticism over promoting nuclear power without resolving where the waste will ultimately be disposed.
Symposiums are planned for Sapporo, Sendai, Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka, Fukuoka and roughly four other cities, hosted by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and the Nuclear Waste Management Organization of Japan, which was previously solely responsible for the disposal plan……..
The government is also considering launching an information campaign on social networking services, with the details to be discussed at a METI task force meeting set for Tuesday, the sources said.
The current disposal policy, adopted in 2008, calls for waste to be vitrified and placed in facilities deep underground. Revisions to the policy at the end of the month are expected to include the selection of candidate sites on scientific grounds, without waiting for local authorities to volunteer to host the facilities. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/03/08/national/government-start-campaign-nuclear-waste-disposal-sites/#.VPy51tKUcnk
Tawian has serious problems in its nuclear waste management
Questions raised over nuclear waste management, Taipei Times By Tang Chia-ling / Staff reporter 9 Mar 15 The Atomic Energy Council (AEC) has detected greater-than-class-C (GTCC) nuclear waste at the nuclear-waste storage facility on Orchid Island (Lanyu, 蘭嶼) in Taitung County, despite the facility being designed for only low-radioactive materials, raising questions over the management of nuclear waste.
The council originally ordered Taiwan Power Co (Taipower, 台電) to introduce new rules on nuclear-waste classification by the end of last year, after it discovered the GTCC nuclear waste on the outlying island.
However, Taipower has failed to meet the deadline due to technical difficulties in compiling a nuclear-waste inventory, so the deadline has been extended, the council said.
According to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission classification system, nuclear waste with a concentration of cesium-137 or strontium-90 greater than 4,600 and 7,000 curies per cubic meter respectively, or with a concentration of nickel-63 greater than 700 curies per cubic meter, is considered GTCC waste.
Citing a report by the Institute of Energy Research, Yang Mu-huo (楊木火), adviser to Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Chen Ou-po (陳歐珀), said GTCC waste is mainly made up of components of decommissioned nuclear reactors and resins derived during the maintenance of nuclear power plants.
Class B nuclear waste is required to be stored in containers for 300 years, while class C waste needs to be stored for 500 years. GTCC waste is generally unacceptable for near-ground storage and requires a special disposal plan, the report shows.
Yang questioned why storage canisters designed for storage of up to 100 years had been used for the waste on Orchid Island and why authorities did not propose a special disposal plan for the GTCC materials……..http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2015/03/09/2003613111
Halliburton & Co used fracking to Inject Nuclear Waste Underground for Decades
Shock: Fracking Used to Inject Nuclear Waste Underground for Decades By Aaron Dykes and Melissa Melton Global Research, March 06, 2015 Activist Post 5 March 2015 Unearthed articles from the 1960s detail how nuclear waste was buried beneath the Earth’s surface by Halliburton & Co. for decades as a means of disposing the by-products of post-World War II atomic energy production.
Fracking is already a controversial practice on its face; allowing U.S. industries to inject slurries of toxic, potentially carcinogenic compounds deep beneath the planet’s surface — as a means of “see no evil” waste disposal — already sounds ridiculous, dangerous, and stupid anyway without even going into further detail.Alleged fracking links to the contamination of the public water supply and critical aquifers, as well as ties to earthquake upticks near drilling locations that are otherwise not prone to seismic activity have created uproar in the years since the 2005 “Cheney loophole,” which allowed the industry to circumvent the Safe Drinking Water Act by exempting fracking fluids, thus fast tracking shale fracking as a source of cheap natural gas.
Now, it is apparent that the fracking industry is also privy to many secrets of the nuclear energy industry and, specifically, where the bodies are buried, err… dangerous nuclear waste is buried, rather — waste that atomic researchers have otherwise found so difficult to eliminate. Continue reading
£53bn cost now – the ever more expensive Sellafield nuclear clean-up
Sellafield clean-up costs rise to £53bn, says NAO BBC News 4 Mar 15 The cost of decommissioning and cleaning up the Sellafield nuclear site in Cumbria has increased by £5bn to £53bn, says the National Audit Office.
Margaret Hodge MP, chair of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) which commissioned the report, said the cost hike was “astonishing.”
A year ago, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, the body responsible for the clean up, said the cost would be £48bn.
The work is also behind schedule, the report said.
The Authority gave the £9bn Sellafield clean-up contract to Nuclear Management Partners (NMP), but following criticism of NMP’s competence, decided in January to cancel the contract.
“It is galling that breaking the contract will cost the public purse £430,000,” said Mrs Hodge, whose committee recommended the Authority consider doing this a year ago.
‘Escalation’
The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, the Department of Energy and Climate Change, NMP, and Sellafield Ltd. are due to appear before the Committee on 11 March.
Mrs Hodge said she expected them to “tell me how the escalation in cost of cleaning up Sellafield will be stopped and performance put back on track.”
Chris Jukes, regional officer of the GMB union, said: “GMB has been absolutely clear all along that the NMP model did not work at Sellafield…….
The total cost of cleaning up the UK’s 17 nuclear sites is “around £70bn”, the NAO says.
Sellafield is the “UK’s largest and most hazardous nuclear site”, including two nuclear fuel reprocessing plants, waste management and storage plants, as well as storage ponds and silos containing waste from the UK’s first nuclear plants.
The Authority aims to clear the site by 2120. http://www.bbc.com/news/business-31725365
Areas in Creighton, Saskatchewan and Schreiber assessed, not likley to be suitable for nuclear wastes
they should stop making radioactive trash – with nowhere to put it
NWMO Concludes Studies in Creighton, Saskatchewan and Schreiber, Ontario TORONTO, March 3, 2015 – The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) is concluding preliminary assessment work in two communities engaged in learning about Adaptive Phased Management (APM), Canada’s plan for the long-term management of used nuclear fuel.
One way to dispose of SOME of the nuclear waste burden
Can’t We Just Throw Our Nuclear Waste Down A Deep Hole? http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/03/05/cant-we-just-throw-our-nuclear-waste-down-a-deep-hole/ James Conca 5 Mar 15 Um…yes, we can. It’s called Deep Borehole Disposal and is pretty easy for some nuclear waste. Especially some highly radioactive materials that have sat in some fairly small capsules for almost 40 years.
This was exactly the topic of discussion in Washington this week when Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz answered questions from Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-WA) at a House Science, Space and Technology committee hearing (Tri-City Herald).
The answer from Moniz was positive. He discussed a pilot project that would demonstrate the idea of deep borehole disposal using these capsules.
Deep borehole disposal is simple. Drill a very deep hole – 3 miles or so – put the waste in it and fill it up with some special layers, but mainly crushed rock and cement. As geologists, we know how many millions of years it takes for anything to get up from that depth in the Earth’s crust.
As long as you don’t put it under an active volcano!
The nice thing about deep borehole disposal is that it doesn’t matter where you put it in the country. At that depth, you’re so deep in the crust that the overlying rocks don’t matter. The water table doesn’t matter. The climate doesn’t matter. Human activities don’t matter.
But why these capsules? Because the material, cesium-137 and strontium-90 chloride salts (137CsCl and 90SrCl2), is in an easy waste form compared to that sludgy gooey stuff that makes up most of the tank waste left over from weapons production. These capsules are dry solid material in relatively small containers – less than 3-inches in diameter and only 2-feet long – very small compared to the large spent fuel assemblies and high-level waste glass logs usually discussed in geologic disposal plans.
Deep borehole disposal for the larger waste containers is trickier and more expensive because we haven’t yet drilled large-diameter holes that deep. Like all technological advances, we will (Sandia National Labs; Ethan Bates et al 2014). But these capsules are less than 3-inches wide, and we’ve drilled 6 and 8 inch holes that deep many times, so nothing really new needs to be developed for this project.
There are 1,936 capsules filled with radioactive 137CsCl and 90SrCl2 that are stored underwater at the Waste Encapsulation Storage Facility at DOE’s Hanford site in Washington State. Because these radionuclides, left over from plutonium production for weapons, are the primary heat-generator in nuclear waste, they were separated from the rest of the waste almost 40 years ago to reduce heat in the tanks, as well as to use in research.
But there is a time-sensitive nature to these capsules. Although CsCl doesn’t melt until 645°C (1,193°F), it goes through a bizarre solid-state phase change at 450°C (842°F). This means that without melting it’s atoms change their arrangement in space from one structure to another with a very different density. So as the temperature changes across this boundary, the material swells and shrinks. And that tends to degrade the containers it’s in.
The existing containers are beginning to get a little degraded, so best to get rid of them as soon as possible. They’re small, so deep borehole disposal would be cheap and easy.
Since there isn’t much of this boutique nuclear waste, only 5 cubic yards, and it’s in a great form, this is a perfect opportunity to demonstrate deep borehole disposal and clean out this facility.
Like all really hot nuclear waste, these capsules were destined for the proposed deep geologic nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, which was halted in 2010. Since a new permanent federal repository for high-level waste won’t be chosen for decades, we need to rethink our nuclear disposal program.
And this is a good idea, one of the few looked at by thePresident’s Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future that was formed to come up with a new strategy in the wake of Yucca Mountain’s closure. Their recommendations were basically to pick disposal options suited to the waste and the need. And to get everyone to buy off on them before you start!
These capsules “could be very well suited perhaps for much earlier disposal through a borehole approach,” Moniz said. “We have to drill — we have to do the demonstration project, do the science, which is what we want to do in 2016.”
Budget proposal documents show $2 million for technology development to support plans in fiscal 2016 for what is anticipated to be a multi-year test using a non-radioactive waste substitute. Since Yucca Mountain was projected to cost over $200 billion, this is a steal.
The test would demonstrate technology for sealing the borehole, tools to characterize waste in the borehole and controls on waste isolation. DOE has also sought communities interested in being the site for the borehole test.
Fort Calhoun nuclear waste not going anywhere?
Fort Calhoun Nuclear Waste Needs A Home By: Brian Mastre – WOWT.com , Feb 27, 2015 Nebraskans have paid hundreds of millions of dollars to the federal government to store used nuclear fuel from the state’s two nuclear power plants, but the feds aren’t doing anything with it. Yet, the government keeps the money. Where is the nuclear waste going in the meantime and what’s happening to our dollars?…….http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/Fort-Calhoun-Nuclear-Waste-Needs-A-Home-294370321.html
The massive costs and massive dangers of hosting a radioactive nuclear trash dump
Inside the race for Canada’s nuclear waste: 11 towns vie to host deep burial site Canada’s nuclear waste will be deadly for 400,000 years. What town would like the honour of hosting it?CHARLES WILKINS TheGlobe and Mail Feb. 26 2015,
“If I piled any quantity of shit out there and left it with no disposal plan, I’d be shut down and condemned within weeks. And here’s an industry with the capacity for global devastation, with no permanent plan for their garbage, the most dangerous stuff on Earth, and they’re allowed to keep producing it indefinitely.”
There is in fact a plan for that waste. A federally mandated body, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), wants to bury it in what the nuclear industry calls a Deep Geological Repository, or DGR. First, though, the organization must complete its quest—in effect, a competition, although the NWMO doesn’t see it that way—to find a municipality that will serve as a “willing host” for the repository. Among the contenders for the distinction are the municipalities of Huron-Kinloss, South Bruce and Central Huron, all of them close neighbours to Fran and Tony McQuail.
If it doesn’t seem like a competition any municipality would want to win, consider that spending on the project will likely run as high as $24 billion. And, the construction phase aside, the jobs involved are not the sort that will last only until another, perhaps cheaper, location is found. According to the NWMO’s plan, 400,000 years or more will pass between the point at which the waste is buried and the happy day when any sort of safety sticker is likely to be affixed to the vast toxic grave.
One morning in October, 1957, the principal of Keyes Public School in Deep River, Ontario, came into our Grade 5 classroom and declared that we, the children of the town, had “nothing to be afraid of.” We were to pay no attention to rumours that the reactors at nearby Chalk River would be among the Soviet Union’s first targets should the Cold War suddenly heat up.
Because we had older siblings ever willing to heighten our appreciation of reality, we already knew that if the reactors got hit, the explosion would be the equivalent of a thousand, maybe a million, H-bombs. We knew, too, that Deep River was located exactly seven miles from the reactors because that was the minimum distance at which human life would be spared if the plant ever got hit.
Mercifully, the missiles never came. And the plant never blew.
Others did: Three Mile Island (1979), Chernobyl (1986), Fukushima (2011).
Most of the reactor stories we heard as kids turned out to be fables. Yet more than half a century later, they remain bristling little allegories not just of the risks of splitting the atom but of the doggedness of those who continue to tell us we have “nothing to fear” from an industry that in 1945 said hello to humanity by incinerating 80,000 citizens of Hiroshima…….http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-magazine/inside-the-race-for-canadas-nuclear-waste/article23178848/
The ever-accumulating tonnage of Canada’s radioactive trash
the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), wants to bury it in what the nuclear industry calls a Deep Geological Repository, or DGR
“Finally,” says Eugene Bourgeois, whose idyllic property lies within a kilometre of the Bruce Power reactors, “it has to be impervious to the potential ignorance or delinquency of people, perhaps ‘peopleoids,’ more than a quarter-million years from now”—which is to say, peopleoids who likely will have no notion even of the languages in which the safety code and signage of the DGR were written.
At the same time, the site can’t be too remote. It must be serviced by roads and rail, so that waste can be brought in, and must have a sufficient population that the thousands of folks who will build the facility and the hundreds who will be employed there long-term will have a place to live
Inside the race for Canada’s nuclear waste: 11 towns vie to host deep burial site Canada’s nuclear waste will be deadly for 400,000 years. What town would like the honour of hosting it? CHARLES WILKINS TheGlobe and Mail Feb. 26 2015,
……..the Western Waste Management Facility, where Ontario Power Generation stores much of its share of the 48,000 tonnes of waste that have accumulated in Canada during the past 65 years and that the company and other nuclear-power producers hope will eventually be lowered into the national DGR (Deep Geological Repository)
The ever-accumulating tonnage, which in the wrong hands could provide payloads for thousands of atomic bombs, is entombed in a thousand snow-white containers (a half-inch of steel atop reinforced concrete), each the size of, say, a Lincoln Navigator set on end and weighing 70 tonnes……..
The $24-billion cost of a deep repository—to be paid by the producers (hence ultimately their customers) out of a fund that now stands at less than $3 billion—sounds like a lot for the existing quantity of nuclear-fuel waste in the country. NWMO spokesman Mike Krizanc visualizes Canada’s 48,000-tonne waste pile as “enough to cover six NHL-sized hockey rinks to the top of the boards.”
The discrepancy is explained by toxicity. According to Gordon Edwards, a mathematician who has critiqued the nuclear industry for decades as president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, irradiated—that is, used—nuclear fuel is “millions of times more radioactive and deadly than when the unirradiated fuel was placed in the reactors.” Studies have connected the various isotopes contained in the waste to cancer, immune system damage and genetic mutation. Those six hockey rinks are enough, say nuclear detractors, that if the waste is buried in the wrong place, or in the wrong way, it could ruin our water, render the landscape useless for agriculture, or, in a darker scenario, render it useless for human habitation…… Continue reading
Abe government “irresponsible” about nuclear wastes – Science Council of Japan
Nuclear waste disposal problem, Japan Times, FEB 22, 2015 Even as the Abe administration pushes for reactivating idled nuclear power reactors after they have cleared the Nuclear Regulation Authority’s safety screening, an open question remains: How will Japan dispose of highly radioactive waste produced by the nuclear reactors.
The trade and industry ministry has drafted a new policy on the waste scheme that paves the way for changing the disposal method in the future when policies change or new technologies become available, but it is far from clear if the move will facilitate the long-stalled process of finding a site for radioactive waste disposal.
Due to the lack of an established scheme for final disposal of the waste that would be generated after spent fuel is reprocessed, Japan’s nuclear power generation has long been likened to a condominium without a toilet. The absence of a solution was highlighted two years ago when former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi vocally expressed opposition to restarting nuclear power reactors that had been idled in the wake of the 2011 meltdowns at Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.
The government in 2000 adopted a policy of disposing of highly radioactive waste by burying it deep underground. A power industry organization has solicited municipalities across the country that would be ready to host the final disposal site. A financially strapped town in Kochi Prefecture came forward in 2007 to apply for a documentary review in the selection process. But the bid was eventually withdrawn when its mayor faced strong opposition from local residents. He was forced out of office in a subsequent election. No progress has since been made on the issue.
Meanwhile, doubts have been raised about the safety and technical viability of vitrifying and burying the radioactive waste — which would need to be managed for tens of thousands of years before its radioactivity declined to levels considered safe — in a country prone to earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. …….
The government may be trying to win public support for restarting the idled reactors by demonstrating flexibility on moving the waste-disposal issue forward. But in its policy proposal now being prepared, the Science Council of Japan criticizes the government for being “irresponsible toward future generations” by seeking to restart the reactors without a decision on the waste-disposal site.
The council says it will be difficult to decide on the waste- disposal site “given that public trust in the government, power companies and scientists has been lost”………http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2015/02/22/editorials/nuclear-waste-disposal-problem/#.VOpJPXyUcnk
Threats for oil drillers and others, in the Arctic’s submerged radioactive trash from Russia
The Norwegian government has spent more than $126 million on Russian nuclear safety projects in the last two decades, according to the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority.
The 17,000 dumped containers are also a potential disaster, creating a minefield for oil companies looking to drill in the area, particularly because the exact locations of most of the containers are unknown.
The Soviet Union Dumped A Bunch of Nuclear Submarines, Reactors, and Containers into the Ocean https://news.vice.com/article/the-soviet-union-dumped-thousands-of-nuclear-submarines-reactors-and-containers-into-the-ocean By Laura Dattaro February 21, 2015 The 1986 Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine remains one of the worst nuclear incidents in history and highlighted the risks of generating power by splitting atoms. But it’s not the only nuclear waste the Soviet Union left behind. Scattered across the ocean floor in the cold waters of the Arctic are nuclear submarines and reactors dumped by the Soviets up until the early 1990s.
Now, as energy companies are seeking to drill in those same waters, the Russian government has shown an interest in cleaning up its nuclear waste. But after decades of sitting on the ocean floor, some of the most dangerous pieces may be too unstable to remove, leaving the potential for radioactive material to leak, which could disrupt commercial fisheries and destroy aquatic ecosystems.
“Taking reactors and cutting out the bottom of your ships and letting them sink to the bottom is about as irresponsible as you can get when it comes to radioactive waste,” Jim Riccio, a nuclear expert with Greenpeace, told VICE News. “We’ve had some weird [behavior] in this country where we haven’t been all that great with it but nothing that rose to the level of what the Soviets had done.” Continue reading
Nuclear Regulatory Commission to take over environmental review of Yucca project
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz recently reiterated that Yucca Mountain doesn’t have public support and is not a workable solution, a point that three Nevada lawmakers — Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and Republicans Sen. Dean Heller of Nevada and Gov. Brian Sandoval — hammered home in a letter to The Washington Post this week.
“If Yucca Mountain has taught us anything, it is that continuing to try to force the repository on Nevada only gets the nation further away from a real solution,” the senators and Sandoval wrote.
NRC will complete environmental review of Yucca project — chairman http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060013577 Hannah Northey, E&E reporter Greenwire: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission intends to complete an environmental review of the contentious waste repository under Yucca Mountain in Nevada because the Energy Department has refused to do so, the NRC’s chairman said today.
“The decision is we will do that since [the Department of Energy] told us they won’t be doing it,” NRC Chairman Stephen Burns told reporters at the Platts 11th Annual Nuclear Energy Conference in Washington, D.C., today. “We have the funds that are left over from the carryover for high-level waste, will cover the preparation of the supplemental [environmental impact statement].” Continue reading
Japan’s government wrestles with the unsolved problem of nuclear wastes
Government explores options on how to store nuclear waste in the long term, Japan Times, 18 Feb 15
KYODO The government said Tuesday it will consider pursuing a final storage site for nuclear waste that can be opened in the event that policies change or better techniques become available to deal with it.
Officials aim to include the plan in a revised basic policy on the final disposal of highly radioactive waste. The government is currently considering the vexed question of what to do with waste in the long-term, as some of it may need management for tens of thousands of years.
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s administration wants to fire up nuclear reactors again following the hiatus caused by the 2011 Fukushima meltdowns, but public opinion remains opposed.
Critics accuse the government of pushing a return to nuclear without answering the question of where the waste will go.
Also on Tuesday, the Science Council of Japan, a representative organization of various scientists, rapped the government’s stance as “irresponsible,” urging it and power companies to develop concrete measures for handling nuclear waste as a prerequisite for restarting reactors.
To fend off such criticism, the revised policy will also declare that the “current generation” is not only responsible for generating the waste it will also take action on the storage question. However, it falls short of mentioning a time frame for deciding on the final storage……..
As for how Japan would store its waste, a policy adopted in 2008 envisions reprocessing the waste, then vitrifying it and placing it deep underground…….
This implies a possible review of Japan’s long-standing but stalled policy of a nuclear fuel cycle that aims to reprocess all spent fuel and reuse the extracted plutonium and uranium as reactor fuel…….
The process of finding local governments willing to host a final repository started in 2002, but there was overwhelming opposition and little progress was made.
The government now plans to choose candidate sites based on their scientific value, rather than waiting for municipalities to step forward.
The Science Council of Japan also suggested that waste be temporarily kept in above-ground dry storage for 50 years in principle, during which the government should try to build a consensus on the issue. It also called for national discussions on how to curb, or setting limitations, on the amount of nuclear waste to be generated. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/02/17/national/science-health/final-nuclear-waste-dump-may-be-reversible/#.VOP4A-aUcnk
Risky Radioactive Trash Shipments Would be Terrorist Targets
Public Citizen outlined five key objections to the plan, most of which were raised by Texas’s own Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) last year:
1. Waste shipments would be targets for sabotage or blackmail by terrorists. TCEQ noted that the waste is more vulnerable to accidents or attacks while in transit than if left it where it is, because security is lighter then and fewer radiation shields would be available. Shipments from reactors around the country — passing through dozens of population centers — could last over 24 years. The Energy Dept. estimates that there would be about 10,700 shipments if done by rail; about 53,000 shipments (others say 100,000) if done by truck.
2. WCS would have only limited liability, while the public would be put at risk from transport accidents, leaks and terrorism.
3. So-called “short-term” storage may become permanent — an unearned trophy for the nuclear industry. The complex scientific analysis required for any permanent waste site would take about 10 years and has not been done.
4. The WCS site is too close to the Ogallala Aquifer, which provides water to eight states.
High-Level Rad Waste Dump Called “All Risk and No Reward for Texas” http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/02/11/high-level-rad-waste-dump-called-all-risk-and-no-reward-for-texas/A high-level radioactive waste “parking lot” — proposed for West Texas — poses both terrible and unnecessary risks for people throughout the country — Texas in particular — and should not be built.
That’s the position of a coalition of public interest groups that declared its opposition to the plan February 9. Continue reading
AREVA joins US Waste firm to cash in on radioactive trash storage
AREVA and WCS Sign Agreement for Independent Interim Used Nuclear Fuel Storage Site http://www.newswiretoday.com/news/150345/ NewswireToday – /newswire/ – Paris, Ile-de-France, France, 2015/02/10 – AREVA has signed an agreement with Waste Control Specialists LLC (WCS) to assist with their license application and environmental report for the construction of an interim used nuclear fuel storage facility – WCSTexas.com / AREVA.com.
WCS filed a letter of intent on February 6, 2015 with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) stating their intention to seek a license to operate an offsite Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation at their 14,000-acre facility in Andrews, TX.
WCS filed a letter of intent on February 6, 2015 with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) stating their intention to seek a license to operate an offsite Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation at their 14,000-acre facility in Andrews, TX.
“AREVA is pleased to provide WCS with its licensing experience and global expertise for the safe storage, transport and
management of used nuclear fuel,” said David Jones, senior vice president, of AREVA’s Back End division, North America. “This initiative, which already has the consent of local stakeholders, will deliver an economically viable option for used fuel management while more permanent solutions are addressed.”
AREVA (areva.com) is a global leader in the transportation and storage of used nuclear fuel. More than 40% of American utilities use AREVA’s advanced NUHOMS® horizontal storage technology. The group has already sold 900 storage canisters in the U.S., making it the leading supplier for this solution.
1 This Month
petition to oppose the rapid increase of space-military industry threatening Jeju Island and the region.
[Petition by April 19th (KST)] Stop the joint military-Hanwha Systems-Jeju Provincial Government Sea Launch!
World Nuclear Power. Reactors 1951-2026, 75 Years of Nuclear Power.
Interactive Map– https://dv.worldnuclearreport.org/
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
of the week–London Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Tell the Ukrainian Government to Drop Prosecution of Peace Activist Yurii Sheliazhenko
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (194)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 