Hinkley Point B: What happens after a nuclear power station stops making electricity?
After shutting down in 2022, the job now is to carefully
remove tonnes of nuclear waste to be transported for storage at Sellafield
in Cumbria. The team is halfway through that task with one reactor empty
and one more to go.
I was given exclusive access to the power station,
getting the chance to travel deep within the bowels of the building and see
something few people outside EDF Energy get to – the cooling ponds, where
spent fuel is cooled down before being sealed for transport and storage.
there will be another couple of years to finish defuelling operations, then
EDF hands this place over to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority as the
painstaking job of decommissioning will continue for many years.
ITV 13th Aug 2024
Fukushima nuclear fuel debris retrieval to start as early as August
August 14, 2024 (Mainichi Japan)
The operator of the crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant plans to begin
retrieving debris that contains melted nuclear fuel at one of the three
meltdown-hit reactors as early as this month, with the unit to be the first
to undergo the procedure. The removal of the radioactive debris is
considered one of the most challenging tasks in decommissioning the
Fukushima Daiichi plant, whose reactors were severely damaged by the loss
of cooling functions triggered by the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in
northeastern Japan.
https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20240814/p2g/00m/0bu/004000c
Germany may take another 50 years to find final repository for waste from shuttered nuclear power
Sören Amelang, Aug 9, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/germany-may-take-another-50-years-to-find-final-repository-for-waste-from-shuttered-nuclear-power/
Germany’s ongoing hunt for a final repository for highly radioactive nuclear waste could last until the 2070s, a report has warned.
The report by the Institute for Applied Ecology (Öko-Institut), which was commissioned by the country’s Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management (BASE), said a decision on a location can be expected in 2074 at the earliest under ideal conditions, reports Zeit Online.
This would be more than 40 years later than the original 2031 target, which the government already gave up almost two years ago. The environment ministry said the report did not take into consideration significant progress in efforts to shorten the search, for example by saving time on long exploration periods.
The ministry declared in November 2022 that the search won’t be completed in 2031, following a paper by the Federal Company for Radioactive Waste Disposal (BGE) that estimated the search could take until 2046 or, in another scenario, until 2068.
The next step will be for the BGE to propose shortlisted siting regions at the end of 2027, the ministry said. “This is the right time to discuss and regulate further acceleration in a transparent manner. A great deal of time can be saved, particularly in the surface and underground exploration,” it added.
But Journalist Bernward Janzing wrote in a commentary it was questionable how much the “scientifically well designed” process can be accelerated without compromising high safety standards.
Germany completed its nuclear phase-out last year and will now have to store 1,900 large containers, or around 28,100 cubic metres (m3), of high-level radioactive waste by 2080, when all its nuclear power stations and many research facilities will have been finally decommissioned and the fuel elements treated at other facilities.
Highly radioactive, heat-generating waste accounts for only five percent of Germany’s radioactive refuse, but is responsible for 99 percent of the radiation. It is currently held at temporary storage facilities near decommissioned nuclear power stations and in central interim repositories.
Construction of a repository following a location decision is scheduled to take about 20 years, according to current plans. The process of transporting and storing thousands of casks in the final repository will then take decades more.
Experts from a parliamentary storage commission said that loading and sealing the repository could be expected to last “well into the next century”.
Search for nuclear waste storage facility could be delayed by decades
According to a report by the Freiburg-based Öko-Institut , the search for a final storage facility for
highly radioactive nuclear waste in Germany could take more than 40 years longer than expected. The responsible Ministry of the Environment does not believe this. The law currently stipulates that a site will be determined by 2031. However, it has long been clear that this timetable cannot be met. The study commissioned by the Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management (Base) confirms this and names 2074 as a possible date.
………………………..The search for a final storage facility is about finding a place deep underground for the permanent storage of 27,000 cubic meters of highly radioactive waste (1,750 so-called Castor containers) from more than 60 years of nuclear power in Germany. According to Base, this is five percent of the
radioactive waste in Germany , but it contains around 99 percent of the total radioactivity of all waste. The waste is currently stored in 16 above-ground interim storage facilities in various federal states, whose permits expire before 2050. https://www.zeit.de/wissen/umwelt/2024-08/atommuell-endlager-gutachten
EPA Public Meetings about Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Expansion: August 26th in Carlsbad and August 28th in Santa Fe
| Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety | Aug 9, 2024, https://nuclearactive.org/ |
EPA Public Meetings about WIPP Expansion: August 26th in Carlsbad and August 28th in Santa Fe
The Department of Energy (DOE) wants to expand its operations at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) for plutonium-contaminated waste from the fabrication of nuclear weapons. In March, DOE submitted a Planned Change Request to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) seeking permission to mine and operate two underground disposal panels in the WIPP underground disposal facility. EPA wants to hear from you and is hosting public meetings in Carlsbad and Santa Fe the week of August 26th. https://www.epa.gov/radiation/wipp-news#WIPP-PCR
EPA has one of two ways to decide whether to grant permission. One is through an internal administrative process. The second is through a legal rulemaking that allows the public to present legal challenges to the decision. A full rulemaking and a comprehensive review of the risks from DOE’s proposed changes is the only way to ensure nuclear safety.
Further, DOE wants to significantly expand the WIPP underground with Panels 11 and 12 and eventually mine seven additional panels – Panels 13 through 19 – to bring new types of waste to WIPP, including surplus plutonium. As a result EPA requested additional scientific data and information about how seven new panels and new types of waste would affect WIPP’s ability to contain the waste for 10,000 years.
To help you prepare public comments, the Stop Forever WIPP Coalition is hosting a virtual educational webinar on Wednesday, August 21st from 6 to 8 pm. Don Hancock, the Director of the Southwest Research and Information Center Nuclear Waste Program http://sric.org/ , and Doug Meiklejohn, the Water Quality and Land Restoration Advocate at Conservation Voters of New Mexico https://cvnm.org/ , will present about the DOE Planned Change Request, EPA’s decision making process, and how you can help stop WIPP expansion. Zoom registration link: https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZckdu2urzovG9HUHimFBKcTho4p_amGvt8L#/registration
The informational webinar will prepare you to provide public comments at the in-person and virtual EPA meeting on Monday, August 26th from 2 to 4 pm at the DOE’s Carlsbad Field Office, 4021 National Parks Highway. Zoom registration link:
https://usepa.zoomgov.com/meeting/register/vJIsdeiqrTwpHUkjZ1z_djiz7fqgYMDqcc8
On Wednesday, August 28th from 1 to 3 pm in Santa Fe, EPA will host an in-person and virtual technical meeting among experts about planned changed request. The public is invited to observe. Zoom registration link: https://usepa.zoomgov.com/meeting/register/vJIsdOyqqjosG2w3uwOoOk4UNSxZwyXxE2s
From 6 to 8 pm EPA will host an in-person and virtual public meeting and receive comments about DOE’s Planned Change Request. https://usepa.zoomgov.com/meeting/register/vJIsdumqrzIvHZWmhyQ_Jh7EBe1EcgTmi5Y
Both Santa Fe meetings will take place in the Canyon Ballroom at the Hilton Santa Fe-Historic Plaza, 100 Sandoval Street.
Radiation monitoring keeps track of nuclear waste contamination
Nuclear reactors – whether operational or undergoing decommissioning –
create radioactive waste. Management of this waste is a critical task and
this practice has been optimized over the past few decades. Nevertheless,
strategies for nuclear waste disposal employed back in the 1960s and 70s
were far from ideal, and the consequences remain for today’s scientists
and engineers to deal with.
In the UK, spent nuclear fuel is typically
stored in ponds or water-filled silos. The water provides radiation
shielding, as well as a source of cooling for the heat generated by this
material.
In England and Wales, the long-term disposal strategy involves
ultimately transferring the waste to a deep geological disposal facility,
while in Scotland, near-surface disposal is considered appropriate.
The problem, however, is that some of the legacy storage sites are many decades
old and some are at risk of leaking. And when this radioactive waste leaks
it can contaminate surrounding land and groundwater. The potential for
radioactive contamination to get into the wet environment is an ongoing
problem, particularly at legacy nuclear reactor sites.
“The strategy for waste storage 50 years ago was different to that used now. There wasn’t
the same consideration for where this waste would be disposed of long
term,” explains Malcolm Joyce, distinguished professor of nuclear
engineering at Lancaster University. “A common assumption might have been
‘well it’s going to go in the ground at some point’ whereas actually,
disposal is a necessarily rigorous, regulated and complicated programme.”
In one example, explains Joyce, radioactive waste was stored temporarily in
drums and sited in near-surface spaces. “But the drums have corroded over
time and they’ve started to deteriorate, putting containment at risk and
requiring secondary containment protection,” he says. “Elsewhere, some
of the larger ponds in which spent nuclear fuel was stored are also
deteriorating and risking loss of containment.”
Physics World 7th Aug 2024, https://physicsworld.com/a/radiation-monitoring-keeps-track-of-nuclear-waste-contamination/
Why US nuclear waste policy got stalled. And what to do about it.
The lack of a repository doesn’t seem to worry nuclear enthusiasts anymore, probably because it doesn’t threaten what reactor licensing there is. Recent legislation—the ADVANCE Act—to accelerate approval of new nuclear technologies does not mention nuclear waste at all. The focus is on subsidizing new reactor projects and “streamlining” licensing.
A difficulty is that current law requires that, before the Energy Department can go forward with a surface storage facility to consolidate the used fuel, it has to have already selected a new geologic repository site, which isn’t happening.
Bulletin, By Victor Gilinsky | July 31, 2024, Victor Gilinsky is a physicist and was a commissioner of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission during the Ford, Carter, and Reagan administrations
It is often said—somewhat accusingly—that it isn’t technical issues that stand in the way of siting a US geologic repository for highly radioactive waste, but political and social ones. In fact, the issues are inextricably connected. The root of the US failure lies in the original motive of the nuclear establishment in siting such an underground repository. It was not to protect public safety, but to protect continued licensing of nuclear power plants from attack in the courts on grounds that there were no provisions for dealing with the plants’ highly radioactive waste.
The disdain for public safety and the rush to open a repository infected the design process and fostered slapdash decisions. These ultimately sank the technical case for the repository at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain. And while in the end the project was shelved by a political act, behind it were Energy Department and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) actions that left a deep residue of public distrust, so deep that there isn’t likely to be a US geologic repository, ever.
The contrast with successful waste repository projects in Sweden and Finland is clear. Their regulatory standards were much tighter than those applied by the NRC, the sites were chosen carefully from a scientific point of view, and the designs strictly focused on public safety. It is not surprising that the Scandinavian authorities were able to gain the confidence of their public, and not just because they took pains to consult the public—which the Energy Department did not. They presented a good case for a sound underground facility.
Waste become a problem. ………………………………………………..
Selecting a bad site. Yucca Mountain was initially advertised as being very dry. It turned out there was lots more water in the mountain than the Department expected……………………………. It became clear the waste canisters would corrode much more rapidly than forecast and radioactive leakage beyond the site boundary would exceed even the lax standards imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency and adopted by the NRC……
A flawed licensing process. While the Energy Department wanted credit for the 11,000 drip shields in the NRC review of its license application, it didn’t intend to install them with the waste canisters. For one thing, the cost of the needed 55,000 tons of titanium alloy was substantial, and putting in drip shields would have complicated the waste installation process and required new, as yet undesigned, equipment. Instead, the Energy Department’s plan “postponed” drip shield installation until the repository closed for good, in 100-300 years. But by then it would be impossible to install drip shields over the waste canisters: The internal underground transportation system would not be functioning, and rockfall would anyhow make passage impossible. Asked how the NRC could possibly accept this fantastical commitment, I remember an Energy Department official responding that “the NRC may not question the promise of a sister agency.”
The Energy Department refused to run any computer analyses on how the repository would perform if the drip shields didn’t get installed. Nevada managed to do this and found that, without drip shields, the repository failed the licensing requirement for radioactive leakage from the site. ………………………………………………………
NRC staff participates in all agency licensing hearings. Since at that point staffers had already reviewed the application favorably, they supported the license applicant. In the Yucca Mountain case, the staff outdid itself in its support of the Energy Department. …………………………..
Stop the stalemate. The Yucca Mountain project was stalled indefinitely by the Obama administration before any substantive licensing hearing took place. It was not irrelevant that Nevada Senator Harry Reid was the Democratic majority leader, and his former assistant was NRC chairman. But the technical failures were a vital part of the background leading to this decision.
The 2012 report of a “Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future” recommended a “consent-based approach” to managing nuclear waste. The Energy Department got religion and formed an Office of Consent-Based Siting, whose website explains that consent-based siting “prioritizes the participation and needs of people and communities and seeks their willing and informed consent to accept a project in their community.” But the department still didn’t get it. It’s not making a show of consulting the public that gains trust. You need a good technical plan to start with and demonstrated competence and sense of responsibility to carry it out, as was the case in the Scandinavian countries. In my judgment, it’s too late for the Energy Department. I don’t think any state would ever trust the Energy Department to build and operate a nuclear waste repository.
The lack of a repository doesn’t seem to worry nuclear enthusiasts anymore, probably because it doesn’t threaten what reactor licensing there is. Recent legislation—the ADVANCE Act—to accelerate approval of new nuclear technologies does not mention nuclear waste at all. The focus is on subsidizing new reactor projects and “streamlining” licensing.
The United States, however, does need a better system for storing highly radioactive used fuel than the current situation of keeping it at over 80 storage locations in 36 states. A difficulty is that current law requires that, before the Energy Department can go forward with a surface storage facility to consolidate the used fuel, it has to have already selected a new geologic repository site, which isn’t happening. This restriction was inserted into the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to prevent the government from siting a “temporary” storage facility and then giving up on an underground repository for permanent disposal of the waste. Now, because of this restriction, the United States has neither centralized storage nor a repository, and the waste keeps piling up. Relaxing the provision in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act that has prevented temporary consolidated storage has to be the starting point of a sensible nuclear waste policy. https://thebulletin.org/2024/07/why-us-nuclear-waste-policy-got-stalled-and-what-to-do-about-it/?utm_source=Newsletter+&utm_medium=Email+&utm_campaign=ThursdayNewsletter08012024&utm_content=NuclearRisk_NuclearWastePolicyStalled_07312024
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
1 This Month
18 March Webinar @ 1 PM EST: An Assessment of SMR Projects: The Case of Canada
register for the zoom:
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_o8BIIOUvQ2ONJR1nta65DQ#/registration
of the week – STOP SMALL MODULAR REACTORS IN CANADA
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- March 2026 (138)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
-
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 
