Too short, ill-timed and clumsy: Welsh Nuclear Free Local Authorities critical of Trawsfynydd radioactive waste consultation
https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/too-short-ill-timed-and-clumsy-welsh-nflas-critical-of-trawsfynydd-consultation/ 6 Aug 24
The Nuclear Free Local Authorities are critical of a recent consultation conducted by Natural Resources Wales on plans to leave low-level radioactive building waste in-situ at the former Trawsfynydd nuclear power station and remain fearful that without remedial action in the long-term there could be further contamination that runs off into the lake.
Natural Resources Wales launched its consultation on plans by Nuclear Restoration Services on 6 July and this has just ended today.
The NFLAs made clear in its response its criticism of the timetable and process. NRW only allowed a four-week window for responses on the proposals, despite a typical consultation period in the nuclear industry being twelve weeks. The consultation was also held during summer holiday season when many people take holidays with their families. NRW also made things worse by failing to publish all the documents relating to the consultation on their website; instead interested parties had to ring, or email, a case officer to obtain them after an inevitable delay. Other enquirers reported to the NFLA Secretary that they had been informed there would be a charge for supplying the documents. Consequently, we described the consultation as ‘too short, ill-timed and clumsy’.
Nuclear Restoration Services which is responsible for decommissioning the former Trawsfynydd plant and safely deal with the residual radioactive waste is proposing to leave contaminated building rubble on site by burying it in the now redundant cooling pond complex and covering them with a concrete cap.
The NFLAs are concerned that this will prove an inadequate long-term solution as a report published by the International Atomic Energy Agency detailed issues with historic contamination of the joints in the ponds, and contamination from the ponds of surrounding land.
Trawsfynydd Lake was also routinely the permitted dumping ground for radioactive liquid discharges from the plant, including the water from the cooling ponds when they became redundant, and so it is contaminated. A scientific study indicated that there were abnormal levels of cancer amongst residents of the local area, including amongst some who have consumed the trout that were introduced into the lake and are now fished.
The NFLAs are obviously anxious to ensure that no more radioactive contamination can come from the rubble, however low level, into the land or lake and we would like to see Nuclear Restoration Services to either look to build a bespoke above ground facility or at least look to place the rubble into a relined cooling pond complex.
Japan starts 8th ocean discharge of Fukushima nuclear-tainted wastewater
Xinhua, 2024-08-08 09
TOKYO, Aug. 8 (Xinhua) — Despite persistent opposition at home and abroad, Japan on Wednesday started its eighth round of release of nuclear-contaminated wastewater from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the Pacific Ocean.
Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), the plant’s operator, will discharge about 7,800 tons of wastewater from storage tanks into the Pacific Ocean until Aug. 25.
The Chinese Embassy in Japan on Wednesday expressed firm opposition to this irresponsible move of ocean discharge, noting that discharge concerns the health of all mankind, the global marine environment and the international public interests, and is by no means a private matter for Japan.
Japan starts 8th ocean discharge of Fukushima nuclear-tainted wastewater
Source: Xinhua
Editor: huaxia
2024-08-08 09:23:15
TOKYO, Aug. 8 (Xinhua) — Despite persistent opposition at home and abroad, Japan on Wednesday started its eighth round of release of nuclear-contaminated wastewater from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the Pacific Ocean.
Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), the plant’s operator, will discharge about 7,800 tons of wastewater from storage tanks into the Pacific Ocean until Aug. 25.
The Chinese Embassy in Japan on Wednesday expressed firm opposition to this irresponsible move of ocean discharge, noting that discharge concerns the health of all mankind, the global marine environment and the international public interests, and is by no means a private matter for Japan.
Without addressing the international community’s concerns about the safety of such discharges, the long-term reliability of purification facility, and the effectiveness of monitoring arrangements, Japan’s continued release of nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean shifts the risk of potential contamination to the whole world, a spokesperson for the embassy said.
The spokesperson called on the Japanese side to fully cooperate in setting up an independent international monitoring arrangement that remains effective in the long haul and has substantive participation of stakeholders…………………… more https://english.news.cn/20240808/34fcc4b7f0054fc6a525823c411acbe1/c.html
Lake District’s Coastal Nuclear Waste Dump Screw Tightens.
“Geology is the ground we stand on; it’s in the food we eat, and in the water we drink.”
Marianne Birkby, Aug 05, 2024
Lake District’s Coastal Nuclear Waste Dump Screw Tightens. Ethicist Kate
Rawles inadvertently hits the nail on the head in the NIREX sponsored paper
of 2000: ‘Ethical Issues in the Disposal of Radioactive Wastes’: “The
judgment about geology rests on the values put on human life and health. If
human health were not valued, the geological criteria would not be the
same.” Cue Cumbria’s complex and faulted geology! Burying hot
(literally 100 degrees c +) nuclear waste would be akin to burying a
gargantuan cracked pressure cooker containing the most dangerous substances
produced by man. By continuing down the “Implementation of Geological
Disposal” yellow brick road what does that say about the value placed on
human and non-human health? Our dedicated campaign against the nuclear dump
can be seen here at Lakes Against Nuclear Dump – a Radiation Free Lakeland
campaign.
Radiation Free Lakeland 5th Aug 2024
https://radiationfreelakeland.substack.com/p/lake-districts-coastal-nuclear-waste
Alliance Takes Nuclear Waste Opposition Message to Communities Throughout Northwestern Ontario
We the Nuclear Free North, 5 August 24, Dryden
– A northern Ontario alliance opposed to plans to transport and bury nuclear waste in northwestern Ontario is taking its message to more than a dozen communities across northern Ontario this month, doing one-day stops with an information table, displays and children’s activities.
The all-volunteer effort organized by We the Nuclear Free North began an eight-day tour on August 1st, with visits in Fort Frances, Sioux Lookout, Kenora and Vermilion Bay. Locations were organized with the respective municipalities, and selected for high visibility and pedestrian traffic.
“The public response has been very positive”, commented Brennain Lloyd, project coordinator with Northwatch and tour organizer.
“People are approaching the table looking for a petition to sign and ideas about how they can express their opposition to this project. Many are commenting on how they can’t believe that it has gone this far, and they feel an urgency to see it brought to a stop”.
On July 10th the Township of Ignace delivered their “willingness decision” to the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, which locked the Township into an agreement signed on March 18th, committing the current and future Township councils to supporting the project.
“We’re spending time in communities that are downstream of the NWMO’s candidate site (between Ignace and Dryden) and along the transportation route”, explained Wendy O’Connor, a member of Nuclear Free Thunder Bay.
“Outside of Ignace, there is real frustration with the NWMO having positioned Ignace as their proxy decision-maker, while shutting out all of the other communities that will be impacted if this project were ever to go through.”
There is broad opposition to the NWMO project from individuals, community and citizens’ groups, municipalities, and First Nations. In addition to criticism of the project itself due to the negative impacts on the environment and human health during transportation and operation and after radioactive waste abandonment, the NWMO siting process and the Township of Ignace’s approach have also been soundly criticized for being secretive, undemocratic, and lacking scientific and technical rigour.
The tour is being supported by local volunteers in each of the stops, which continues today in Sioux Lookout, followed by stops in Dryden, Wabigoon and Atikokan. A second leg of the tour will take place in late August, with stops in Wawa, White River, Marathon, Schreiber, Nipigon and Longlac. https://wethenuclearfreenorth.ca/
Burying radioactive nuclear waste poses enormous risks
by David Suzuki, July 31, 2024, https://rabble.ca/environment/burying-radioactive-nuclear-waste-poses-enormous-risks/
The spent fuel will remain radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years, and contamination and leaks are possible during storage, containment, transportation and burial.
As the consequences of burning dirty, climate-altering fossil fuels hit harder by the day, many are seizing on nuclear power as a “clean” energy alternative. But how clean is it?
Although it may not produce the emissions that burning fossil fuels does, nuclear power presents many other problems. Mining, processing and transporting uranium to fuel reactors creates toxic pollution and destroys ecosystems, and reactors increase risks of nuclear weapons proliferation and radioactive contamination. Disposing of the highly radioactive waste is also challenging.
In this case, the NWMO has already paid Indigenous and municipal governments large sums to accept its plans — ignoring communities that will also be affected along transportation routes or downstream of burial sites.
According to Canadian Dimension, industry expects to ship the wastes “in two to three trucks per day for fifty years, in one of three potential containers.” None of the three containment methods has been subjected to rigorous testing.
Even without an accident, trucking the wastes will emit low levels of radiation, which industry claims will produce “acceptable” exposure. Transferring it from the facility to truck and then to repository also poses major risks.
Although industry claims storing high-level radioactive waste in deep geological repositories is safe, no such facility has been approved anywhere in the world, despite many years of industry effort.
Canadian Dimension says, “a growing number of First Nations have passed resolutions or issued statements opposing the transportation and/or disposal of nuclear waste in northwestern Ontario, including Lac Seul First Nation, Ojibway Nation of Saugeen, Grassy Narrows First Nation, Fort William First Nation, and Wabaseemoong Independent Nations.”
Five First Nations — including Grassy Narrows, which is still suffering from industrial mercury contamination after more than 60 years — have formed the First Nations Land Alliance, which wrote to the NWMO, stating, “Our Nations have not been consulted, we have not given our consent, and we stand together in saying ‘no’ to the proposed nuclear waste storage site near Ignace.”
Groups such as We the Nuclear Free North are also campaigning against the plan.
All have good reason to be worried. As Canadian Dimension reports, “All of Canada’s commercial reactors are the CANDU design, where 18 months in the reactor core turns simple uranium into an extremely complex and highly radioactive mix of over 200 different radioactive ingredients. Twenty seconds exposure to a single fuel bundle would be lethal.”
The spent fuel will remain radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years, and contamination and leaks are possible during storage, containment, transportation and burial. Industry, with its usual “out of sight, out of mind” approach, has no valid way to monitor the radioactive materials once they’re buried.
With 3.3 million bundles of spent fuels already waiting in wet or dry storage at power plants in Ontario, New Brunswick, Quebec and Manitoba, and many more to come, industry is desperate to find a place to put it all.
Even with the many risks and no site yet chosen for burial, industry and governments are looking to expand nuclear power, not just with conventional power plants but also with “small modular reactors,” meaning they could be spread more widely throughout the country.
Nuclear power is enormously expensive and projects always exceed budgets. It also takes a long time to build and put a reactor into operation. Disposing of the radioactive wastes creates numerous risks. Energy from wind, solar and geothermal with energy storage costs far less, with prices dropping every day, and comes with far fewer risks.
Industry must find ways to deal with the waste it’s already created, but it’s time to move away from nuclear and fossil fuels. As David Suzuki Foundation research confirms, renewable energy from sources such as wind and solar is a far more practical, affordable and cleaner choice.
David Suzuki is a scientist, broadcaster, author and co-founder of the David Suzuki Foundation. Written with David Suzuki Foundation Senior Writer and Editor Ian Hanington.
Is Manitoba willing to accept nuclear waste risks?
ANNE LINDSEY. 2 Aug 24.
ANYONE driving Highway 17 from Winnipeg to Thunder Bay will pass through Ignace a couple of hours east of Dryden.
A modest Canadian Shield town with about 1,300 inhabitants, Ignace was built on the forest industry, but like so many northern Ontario towns, today actively seeks other economic opportunities.
The alert traveller will also notice many roadside signs between Kenora and Thunder Bay, proclaiming “No Nuclear Waste in Northwest Ontario.” The issue has reached a critical juncture recently in this area.
Hosting Canada’s high-level nuclear waste repository is one of the economic development opportunities being explored by Ignace.
On July 10, Ignace Town Council voted in favour of being a “willing host” for this massive storage hole in the ground and the accompanying transfer facility for the highly radioactive and toxic “spent” fuel from existing and future reactors.
The taxpayer-funded Nuclear Waste Management Organization or NWMO (consisting of the owners of Canada’s nuclear waste and charged by the federal government to find a repository site) provided Ignace a half-million dollar signing bonus, in addition to NWMO’s many donations and monetary contributions to local initiatives leading up to the vote.
Problems abound with this “willingness” declaration, not the least of which is that the site in question is not even in Ignace or in the same watershed. The Revell batholith site, 45 kilometres west of Ignace, lies on the watersheds of both theRainy River which flows into Lake of the Woods, and thence to the Winnipeg River and Lake Winnipeg, and the English River which flows north through Lac Seul and into Lake Winnipeg.
The waste will remain dangerous for literally millennia. Burying irretrievable nuclear waste in an excavated rock cavern that is deep underground where groundwater flows through the rock and eventually links to surface bodies has never been tested in real life. The industry relies on computer models to persuade us that future generations will not be at risk.
The waste will have to be transported to Revell, mostly from southern Ontario and New Brunswick — several massive shipments daily for 40 years for the existing waste — along the often-treacherous route skirting Lake Superior. It must then be “repackaged” in a surface facility into burial canisters.
Little is publicly known about what this entails, but any accidents and even routine cleaning will result in radioactive pollution to the surrounding waters posing a more immediate risk.
First Nations along the downstream routes have expressed their opposition to this project. Chief Rudy Turtle of Asubpeeschoseewagong (Grassy Narrows) was clear in his letter to the CEO of NWMO: “The water from that site flows past our reserve and into the waters where we fish, drink, and swim. The material that you want to store there will be dangerous for longer than Canada has existed, longer than Europeans have been on Turtle Island, and longer than anything that human beings have ever built has lasted. How can you reliably claim that this extremely dangerous waste will safely be contained for hundreds of thousands of years?”
His views are echoed by neighbouring chiefs, and other Treaty 3 First Nations have rejected nuclear waste transportation and abandonment through and in their territories. Wabigoon First Nation, the closest to the Revell site, will hold its own community referendum on willingness to host the site this fall. It’s not known how much money or other inducements NWMO has offered for a signing bonus.
In 1986, a citizens group in the Eastern Townships of Quebec successfully lobbied politicians on both sides of the border to reject a U.S. proposal for a massive nuclear waste repository in Vermont, on a watershed flowing into Canada.
Around the same time, Manitoba citizens convinced our government to oppose another proposed U.S. nuclear waste site — with potential for drainage to the Red River. And eventually, the NDP government of Howard Pawley passed Manitoba’s High-Level Radioactive Waste Act, banning nuclear waste disposal in this province.
Where does Manitoba stand today? We don’t know, even though the Revell site is not far from Manitoba and the water is flowing this way.
No single town should be making decisions with such profound risks to all of our health and futures. People who depend on Manitoba rivers and lakes (including Winnipeggers, via our water supply from Shoal Lake) should be part of this decision. Now is the time for our elected officials on Broadway and Main Street to become active stakeholders and demand a voice in the nuclear waste “willingness” question.
Anne Lindsey is a longtime observer of the nuclear industry and a Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives Manitoba Research Associate. This article was written in collaboration with the Manitoba Energy Justice Coalition.
Japan continues search for its first nuclear waste disposal site by screening tiny rural town
by undergoing just the first step of screening, the town can receive grants of up to 2 billion yen (US$12.7 million).
Channel Newws Asia Michiyo Ishida, Louisa Tang 31 July 24
Japan has produced more than 19,000 tonnes of nuclear waste since it began generating atomic energy in the 1960s.
GENKAI, Japan: Cattle farmer Hiroshi Nakayama practically grew up with nuclear power in the rural town of Genkai, which has a population of just under 5,000.
The 56-year-old raises 2,000 black-haired wagyu, selling the best as premium and highly sought after Saga beef.
Even though his hometown in southern Kyushu island may one day become Japan’s final destination for nuclear waste, he brushed off concerns that it would affect his business.
Screening began last month to assess if Genkai, which has hosted a nuclear plant for about five decades, is suitable to serve as the country’s first radioactive waste disposal facility.
“Given Japan’s technology, I do not think there will be environmental contamination. Some people say it is dangerous, but no one has died from (the existence of) the nuclear plant,” Mr Nakayama told CNA…………………………
THIRD SITE TO BE SCREENED
Genkai is the third site to undergo screening after two others in Hokkaido which are still being reviewed. It is the only one among them that hosts a nuclear plant.
Japan needs a radioactive waste disposal facility as it has produced more than 19,000 tonnes of nuclear waste since it began generating atomic energy in the 1960s.
This waste will continue to accumulate in interim storage that is dangerous in the long run.
Nuclear waste needs to be stored at least 300 metres underground for about 100,000 years until radioactivity falls to acceptable levels.
Meanwhile, the entire process to select a permanent disposal site will take about 20 years.
Local authorities have the right to pull out at each stage, but by undergoing just the first step of screening, the town can receive grants of up to 2 billion yen (US$12.7 million).
The process begins with the collection of documents describing the town’s geological features. The central government-linked Nuclear Waste Management Organization will then spend two years studying the documents before publishing a report.
Based on that, local leaders will decide whether to move on to the next step.
MAYOR EXPRESSES MISGIVINGS
Some groups in Genkai, including hotel and restaurant associations, had pushed for their town to be screened by submitting petitions. These were approved by the local assembly which represents residents in Genkai.
While the town’s mayor Shintarou Wakiyama gave the green light in May, he said he has misgivings about a disposal site being built there.
One reason he cited was the size of Genkai – just 36 sq km.
“I thought we are too small and not suitable for hosting a final nuclear waste disposal site,” he added……………………………..
By having Genkai undergo screening, he said he hopes other towns will come forward.
He stressed that his decision to approve the screening was not driven by money, noting that the town’s coffers were already in good shape from substantial payouts due to hosting a nuclear plant. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/east-asia/japan-nuclear-radioactive-waste-disposal-site-screening-genkai-town-4513641
Radioactive Wastes from Nuclear Reactors
Questions and Answers, Gordon Edwards 28 July 24
“Why Are We Worried? – about decommissioning The San Onofre nuclear power plant ?
Dr. EDWARDS RESPONSE
Good question. If nuclear power were just generating electricity and nothing else, it would be safe. But it also mass-produces deadly radioactive poisons that were never found in nature before the nuclear age began, just 85 years ago.
For instance, nuclear fuel can be safely handled before it goes into the reactor, but after it comes out, it is millions of times more radioactive — and it will kill any nearby human being in a matter of seconds by means of an enormous blast of gamma radiation.
What makes the used fuel suddenly so dangerous? Well, inside the fuel, there are literally hundreds of brand new varieties of radioactive elements that are created by the splitting of uranium atoms – for example, iodine-131, cesium-137, strontium-90. These are radioactive varieties of non-radioactive elements that exist in nature all around us. They are human made radioactive poisons They’re like evil twins.
For example, ordinary table salt has a little bit of iodine added to it. It’s not radioactive. The iodine goes to the thyroid gland and helps to prevent a terrible disfiguring disease called goiter. Well, nuclear plants produce radioactive iodine. It also goes to the thyroid gland and causes cancer. 6000 children in Belarus had to have their thyroid glands surgically removed because of radioactive iodine from the Chernobyl nuclear accident of 1986, in Ukraine.
Meanwhile, in northern England and Wales, for 30 years after the Chernobyl disaster, sheep farmers could not sell their meat for human consumption when it was contaminated with radioactive cesium. To this day, hunters in Germany and Austria who kill a wild boar cannot eat the meat because of radioactive cesium contamination from Chernobyl. It’s in the soil.
You know, everything is made up of atoms. The only difference is that a radioactive atom will explode. It’s called an “atomic disintegration”. Radioactive atoms are like little time bombs. If they explode inside you, they damage living cells, especially DNA molecules. When DNA is damaged, it may make things grow in an unnatural way. Radiation-damaged cells can and do develop into cancers of all kinds.
Meanwhile, in northern England and Wales, for 30 years after the Chernobyl disaster, sheep farmers could not sell their meat for human consumption when it was contaminated with radioactive cesium. To this day, hunters in Germany and Austria who kill a wild boar cannot eat the meat because of radioactive cesium contamination from Chernobyl. It’s in the soil.
You know, everything is made up of atoms. The only difference is that a radioactive atom will explode. It’s called an “atomic disintegration”. Radioactive atoms are like little time bombs. If they explode inside you, they damage living cells, especially DNA molecules. When DNA is damaged, it may make things grow in an unnatural way. Radiation-damaged cells can and do develop into cancers of all kinds.
So radioactive wastes remain dangerous for millions of years. They are the most toxic wastes ever produced by any industry, ever. These poisons are essentially indestructible. Countless billions of dollars are planned to be spent to keep these materials out of the food we eat, the water we drink, and the air we breathe. At Hanford, in Washington State, the radioactive clean-up is estimated to cost more than $300 billion according to the US General Accounting Office. By building more reactors, we are just adding to the burden.
In reality, the ultimate products of a nuclear reactor are radioactive wastes and plutonium which remain dangerous for millions of year. The electricity is just a little blip on the screen, a short-term benefit for just a few decades. The radioactive legacy lasts forever………………………………………………………………………………. ———–
Is nuclear waste able to be recycled? Would that solve the nuclear waste problem?
Radioactive Wastes from Nuclear Reactors, Questions and Answers, Gordon Edwards 28 July 24.
Well, you know, the very first reactors did not produce electricity. They were built for the express purpose of creating plutonium for atomic bombs. Plutonium is a uranium derivative. It is one of the hundreds of radioactive byproducts created inside every uranium-fuelled reactor. Plutonium is the stuff from which nuclear weapons are made. Every large nuclear warhead in the world’s arsenals uses plutonium as a trigger.
But plutonium can also be used as a nuclear fuel. That first power reactor that started up in 1951 in Idaho, the first electricity-producing reactor, was called the EBR-1 — it actually suffered a partial meltdown. EBR stands for “Experimental Breeder Reactor” and it was cooled, not with water, but with hot liquid sodium metal.
By the way, another sodium-cooled electricity producing reactor was built right here in California, and it also had a partial meltdown. The dream of the nuclear industry was, and still is, to use plutonium as the fuel of the future, replacing uranium. A breeder reactor is one that can “burn” plutonium fuel and simultaneously produce even more plutonium than it uses. Breeder reactors are usually sodium-cooled.
In fact sodium-cooled reactors have failed commercially all over the world, in the US, France, Britain, Germany, and Japan, but it is still the holy grail of the nuclear industry, the breeder reactor, so watch out.
To use plutonium, you have to extract it from the fiercely radioactive used nuclear fuel. This technology of plutonium extraction is called reprocessing. It must be carried out robotically because of the deadly penetrating radiation from the used fuel.
Most reprocessing involves dissolving used nuclear fuel in boiling nitric acid and chemically separating the plutonium from the rest of the radioactive garbage. This creates huge volumes of dangerous liquid wastes that can spontaneously explode (as in Russia in 1957) or corrode and leak into the ground (as has happened in the USA). A single gallon of this liquid high-level waste is enough to ruin an entire city’s water supply.
In 1977, US President Jimmy Carter banned reprocessing in the USA because of fears of proliferation of nuclear weapons at home and abroad. Three years earlier, in 1974, India tested its first atomic bomb using plutonium from a Canadian research reactor given to India as a gift.
The problem with using plutonium as a fuel is that it is then equally available for making bombs. Any well-equipped group of criminals or terrorists can make its own atomic bombs with a sufficient quantity of plutonium – and it only takes about 8 kilograms to do so. Even the crudest design of a nuclear explosive device is enough to devastate the core of any city.
Plutonium is extremely toxic when inhaled. A few milligrams is enough to kill any human within weeks through massive fibrosis of the lungs.
A few micrograms – a thousand times less– can cause fatal lung cancer with almost 100% certainty. So even small quantities of plutonium can be used by terrorists in a so-called “dirty bomb”. That’s a radioactive dispersal device using conventional explosives. Just a few grams of fine plutonium dust could threaten the lives of thousands if released into the ventilation system of a large office building.
So beware of those who talk about “recycling” used nuclear fuel. What they are really talking about is reprocessing – plutonium extraction – which opens a Pandora’s box of possibilities. The liquid waste and other leftovers are even more environmentally threatening, more costly, and more intractable, than the solid waste. Perpetual isolation is still required. ————
“Nuclear disarmament is a right to life issue” – Catholic Archbishop John C Wester
Nuclear weapons were invented here in my Archdiocese. Therefore, I feel a special responsibility to address humanity’s most urgent threat.
“Nuclear disarmament is a right to life issue. No other issue can cause the immediate collapse of civilization. In January 2022 I wrote a pastoral letter in which I traced the Vatican’s evolution from its uneasy conditional acceptance of so-called deterrence to Pope Francis’ declaration that the very possession of nuclear weapons is immoral.
“Therefore, what does this say about expanded plutonium pit production at the Los Alamos Lab? And what does it say about the obscene amounts of money that are being thrown at pit production, often excused as job creation?
“What does this say about the fact that the [NNSA] is pursuing expanded pit production without providing the public the opportunity to review and comment as required by the National Environmental Policy Act? I specifically call upon NNSA to complete a new LANL Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement.
“In two weeks, I travel to Japan for the 79th atomic bombing anniversaries. The bishops of Santa Fe, Seattle, Hiroshima and Nagasaki have a simple message for world leaders. You utterly failed to begin serious negotiations as required by the 1970 NonProliferation Treaty. In this era, you must demonstrate concrete steps toward multilateral, verifiable nuclear disarmament by the 80th bombing anniversaries a year from now. http://nuclearactive.org/four-archbishops-urge-g7-leaders-to-undertake-concrete-steps-toward-nuclear-disarmament/
“I have a simple message for NNSA and the nuclear weapons labs. You’re very good at creating them. Now show us how smart you are by demonstrating how to get rid of nuclear weapons. Stop this new arms race that threatens all of civilization. Let’s preserve humanity’s potential to manifest God’s divine love toward all beings.
Pacific leaders, Japan, agree on Fukushima nuclear wastewater discharge (not everyone is happy)
“The discharge, planned to continue for decades, is irreversible. Radionuclides bioaccumulate in marine organisms and can be passed up the food web, affecting marine life and humans who consume affected seafood,”
“The discharge, planned to continue for decades, is irreversible. Radionuclides bioaccumulate in marine organisms and can be passed up the food web, affecting marine life and humans who consume affected seafood,”
RNZ 19 July 2024 , By Pita Ligaiula in Tokyo
Consensus has been reached by Pacific leaders with Japan to address the controversial release of treated nuclear wastewater from the Fukushima nuclear power plant into the Pacific Ocean.
In August last year, Japan began discharging waste from about 1000 storage tanks holding 1.34 million metric tons of contaminated water collected after an earthquake and tsunami in 2011 that caused the meltdown of the Fukushima nuclear plant.
The agreement came at the Japanese hosted 10th Pacific Island Leaders Meeting (PALM10) on Thursday in the capital Tokyo attended by most of the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) country leaders…………………………..
Pacific leaders emphasised the importance of a shared commitment to safeguarding the health, environment, and marine resources of the Pacific region and a need for transparency from Japan………………………………………….
TEPCO uses a process known as Advanced Liquid Processing System involving special filters which remove from the contaminated water most of the 62 types of radioactive materials, radionuclides such as cesium, strontium, iodine and cobalt but not tritium.
The leaders agreed to keep the ALPS treated water issue as a standing agenda item for future PALM meetings with Japan, supported by an ongoing review process. Their decision reflects concerns about addressing the long-term implications and ensuring continuous monitoring and evaluation.
While consensus was reached at the summit, the wastewater release continues to be questioned by some scientists.
Director of the Kewalo Marine Laboratory at the University of Hawaii, Research Professor Robert Richmond, said concerns remain regarding the efficacy of the ALPS treatment and the contents of the thousands of storage tanks of radioactive wastewater.
“The long-term effects of this discharge on Pacific marine ecosystems and those who depend on them are still unknown. Even small doses of radiation can cause cancer or genetic damage,” Richmond said in a statement to BenarNews after the agreement.
He criticised the current monitoring program as inadequate and poorly designed, failing to protect ocean and human health.
“The discharge, planned to continue for decades, is irreversible. Radionuclides bioaccumulate in marine organisms and can be passed up the food web, affecting marine life and humans who consume affected seafood,” Richmond said……………………………………………… https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/522582/pacific-leaders-japan-agree-on-fukushima-nuclear-wastewater-discharge—
Fukushima plant ends 7th round of treated water release into sea
Tokyo Electric Power Co. announced that it has completed the third round of
treated radioactive water discharge from the stricken Fukushima No. 1
nuclear power plant in this fiscal year. About 7,800 tons of filtered water
were released from storage tanks into the Pacific Ocean after being diluted
by a large volume of seawater, the company said on July 16. This was the
seventh batch of treated water dumped into the sea since TEPCO began the
discharge program in August last year. The utility plans four more rounds
of discharge before the current fiscal year ends in March.
Asahi Shimbun 17th July 2024
Yongbyon Nuclear Complex: New evidence of increased activity
Night-time lights visible at the Yongbyon radiochemical laboratory suggest that North Korea is covertly importing spent fuel rods for plutonium extraction reprocessing
DAILY NK By Bruce Songhak Chung, 16 July 24
Evidence suggests that North Korea is ramping up production of plutonium and uranium nuclear materials at the radiochemical laboratory and uranium enrichment facility in the Yongbyon nuclear complex, as it has begun full-scale operation of the experimental light water reactor this summer. Recently, major foreign media outlets covering North Korea have debated and verified the reliability of the thermal infrared analysis of the Yongbyon facility presented in a Daily NK column I published in May. This article summarizes thoughts and opinions on this matter, and also examines what is behind the intermittent night lights observed in Yongbyon through night-time luminosity images.
Recent conditions at the Yongbyon reactor and light water reactor area were examined using Maxar’s GeoEye-1 satellite imagery (40 centimeter resolution). In the June 19 satellite photo, heated cooling water from the reactor and light water reactor operation is clearly identified being discharged into the Kuryong River through two pump stations, accompanied by white foam. This marks the 16th cooling water discharge detected this year. As it continues to appear in satellite images since late April, the experimental light water reactor appears to have entered full-scale operation. The South Korean Ministry of National Defense had previously predicted that the Yongbyon light water reactor would enter normal operation in or around the summer months.
Below the second pump station, a yellow substance spread out in a rectangular shape can be seen on the ground. This could be wheat or barley being dried after harvest. In North Korea, mid-June is the peak harvest time for wheat and barley in the fields, followed typically by planting corn as the year’s second crop. Soldiers and workers guarding the Yongbyon nuclear facility appear to be engaging in farming activities in empty spaces within the complex as food rations are insufficient.
Analysis of Yongbyon thermal infrared satellite imagery………………………………………………………………………………………..
Repairs of the boiler room in the Yongbyon thermal power plant ………………………………………………………
Mysterious late night lights at the radiochemical laboratory………………………………………………………….
influential foreign media outlets recently released an assessment about thermal infrared analysis, which is used to determine the operational status of the Yongbyon nuclear facilities. The prominent U.S. North Korea-focused website Beyond Parallel has provided an in-depth analysis of the reliability of thermal infrared data. I read the three articles with great interest. The conclusion of the series of articles evaluated the results of the thermal infrared analysis of North Korea’s Yongbyon nuclear facilities as generally reliable. The outlet explained that after obtaining and comparing Yongbyon facility operation records for over two years held by the U.N., the results largely matched those of the thermal infrared analysis. When high heat was detected in the thermal infrared data, it corresponded with the operation of the Yongbyon facilities. However, the caveat was that facilities operating at low intensity might not be detected due to weak heat emissions. They also recommended drawing comprehensive conclusions by combining thermal infrared analysis with various other data, as there are still imperfections in the analysis. This is valuable advice worth noting.
Please send any comments or questions about this article to dailynkenglish@uni-media.net. https://www.dailynk.com/english/yongbyon-nuclear-complex-new-evidence-of-increased-activity/
–
July 16, 2024
Radiation levels assessed for on-site burial plan at old nuclear power station
Demolition and disposal is due to start in 2030
Andrew Forgrave, 14 July 2024 https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/radiation-levels-assessed-site-burial-29523489
Potential radiation levels arising from the next-stage decommissioning of a former nuclear power station have been assessed as within safety thresholds. Magnox, owner of the Trawsfynydd site in Gwynedd, is aiming to demolish and infill the site’s ponds complex before capping it with concrete.
In two scenarios – for future site occupiers and for some local wildlife – the UK’s Nuclear Restoration Services (NRS) said dosages could exceed safe levels. But the company said its own assessments were cautious and under criteria set by Natural Resources Wales (NRW) all safety thresholds were met.
Trawsfynydd stopped generating electricity in 1991 after operating for 26 years. Years of demolition and on-site disposal are planned. The reactor buildings are scheduled for completion by 2055 with final site clearance activities ending by 2070. The site will then be released from radioactive substances regulation “some time after that”.
First to be tackled will be the ponds complex – a set of buildings running alongside the site’s two reactor buildings. This is due for demolition in 2030 and this could take up to two years.
For this Magnox needs to amend its environmental permit and has applied to NRW for permission. A four-week public consultation was launched this week.
Martin Cox, NRW’s head of operations for northwest Wales, said: “We understand this permit variation is of particular interest to the public and local community. As the regulator for this application we are committed to keeping the community and environment healthy.
We must be satisfied the proposed demolition, disposal, and capping is done in ways that are safe and meet our standards for the protection of people and the environment while allowing the site to be released from radioactive substances regulation in the future.”
The ponds complex contains concrete pools formerly used to cool and store used nuclear fuel before it was sent to Sellafield in Cumbria for reprocessing. This process ended in 1997 and 99.9% of all radioactive waste has been removed from the site.
Below the ponds and storage vaults are box-like structures capable of storing about 5,000 cubic metres of material, which is twice the volume of an Olympic-sized swimming pool. The plan is to fill these with “slightly radioactive” broken concrete from the demolished structures above them.
Magnox has submitted a “site-wide environmental safety case”, supported by more than 30 technical reports, to NRW. One includes radioactivity estimates by NRS for the ponds complex spanning four scenarios: natural evolution, human intrusion, site occupancy, and environmental impact.
Dosage levels for “inadvertent” human intrusion were found to meet safety thresholds “in all credible scenarios”. Screening criteria was also met for wildlife and plants in the surrounding area apart from the uppermost stretch of Afon Tafarn-helyg, a tributary of the Afon Dwyryd. Magnox noted its criteria was stricter that NRW’s under which the threshold would be met.
For site occupiers Magnox said a few features, just below ground, might breach its safety guidelines but not NRW’s. It added: “This exceedance is for a configuration that cautiously assumes a 0.15 m (minimum) cap thickness. Moreover such worst-case dose rates would be expected to drop below 0.017 mSv/year after around 100 years beyond the assumed end-state date (2083) and the probability of receiving such a dose is expected to be low.”
In any case radioactivity estimates are expected to decrease prior to demolition as further decommissioning continues. Additional borehole investigations are being conducted this year beneath the ponds complex to get a better understanding of groundwater flows. NRS added: “In short, the proposed disposals will be safe while they are being implemented, for the decades while the site remains under regulatory control, and then afterwards into the indefinite future.”
When considering Magnox’s bid for a permit variation to allow on-site disposal at Trawsfynydd NRW will be consulting with experts in Public Health Wales and the Office of Nuclear Regulation. The process is expected to be “lengthy”.
You can take part in the consultation, and view related documents, here.
1 This Month
Website of the Week
New book – https://www.amazon.com/dp/1923372157?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- January 2026 (94)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
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 
