Licensing of Finnish repository further delayed
WNN, Thursday, 5 December 2024
Finland’s Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority has been given another one-year extension to complete its review of Posiva Oy’s operating licence application for the world’s first used nuclear fuel repository.
Radioactive waste management company Posiva submitted its application, together with related information, to the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment on 30 December 2021 for an operating licence for the used fuel encapsulation plant and final disposal facility currently under construction at Olkiluoto. The repository is expected to begin operations in the mid-2020s. Posiva is applying for an operating licence for a period from March 2024 to the end of 2070.
The government will make the final decision on Posiva’s application, but a positive opinion by the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK) is required beforehand. The regulator began its review in May 2022 after concluding Posiva had provided sufficient material. The ministry had requested STUK’s opinion on the application by the end of 2023. However, in January this year, STUK requested the deadline for its opinion be extended until the end of 2024.
STUK has now said Posiva “has not completed the materials necessary” for it to conduct a safety assessment concerning the plant’s operating licence. At STUK’s request, the ministry has agreed to extend the deadline for the regulator’s opinion to 31 December 2025.
……………………………………………………………… The government granted Posiva a construction licence for the project in November 2015 and construction work on the repository started in December 2016. Once it receives the operating licence, Posiva can start the final disposal of the used fuel generated from the operation of TVO’s Olkiluoto and Fortum’s Loviisa nuclear power plants. The operation will last for about 100 years before the repository is closed. Posiva announced in late August the start of a trial run – expected to take sev more https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/licensing-of-finnish-repository-further-delayederal months – of the operation of the final disposal facility, albeit still without the used fuel.
Canada’s nuclear waste problem is not solved
A quick media scan shows many casual observers leaping to the conclusion that Canada’s nuclear waste problem is “solved,” erasing a major obstacle to a costly and dangerous expansion of nuclear power. Nuclear promoters are encouraging this misleading assumption.
Without a doubt, nuclear waste owners to the south are watching these developments closely. U.S. utilities and government have even more waste in temporary storage and no permanent solution in sight.
ANNE LINDSEY, 4 Dec 24
ON Nov. 28, right on schedule, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) triumphantly declared they have picked their site for the future Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for all of Canada’s high-level nuclear waste.
NWMO is a federal government-created consortium of companies that own and must manage Canada’s nuclear waste — 130,000 tonnes (and counting) of highly toxic radioactive materials currently sitting in temporary storage at reactor sites. Their chosen repository site is near Revell Lake, between Ignace and Dryden, Ont. The Revell area is on the territory of Treaty 3 First Nations, the closest being Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation (WLON). It sits at the headwaters of Wabigoon and the Turtle-Rainy River watersheds — flowing north and west, eventually into Lake Winnipeg, via the English-Wabigoon system, Lake of the Woods and the Winnipeg River.
In July, the town of Ignace signed a “willingness declaration” agreeing to host a DGR in the Revell area (notwithstanding that Ignace is not even on the same watershed as the Revell site), and only days before the site selection announcement, headlines across multiple news outlets suggested that WLON had also declared itself to be a willing host.
In fact, WLON’s news release about its recent community vote says “the yes vote does not signify approval of the project.” It does say that the nation agrees to further study of the site. This is an important distinction. (The Nation has also since stated that the project will be subject to Wabigoon’s own regulatory assessment and approval process. What this means legally in terms of WLON’s ability to reject the project in the future is not currently known).
NWMO’s process says it must receive a “compelling demonstration of willingness” from a host community before proceeding to site characterization (further geological study of the chosen site to see if it’s even suitable for keeping nuclear waste out of groundwater and the environment for the required hundreds of thousands of years).
NWMO says it is “confident” that specific location studies will prove that their out-of-sight, out-of-mind concept of deep burial of some of the most dangerous toxins on Earth will be safe. They’ve been expressing that cavalier confidence for decades, lulling Canadians into believing that it’s fine to keep producing the waste because eventually it will be dealt with.
A quick media scan shows many casual observers leaping to the conclusion that Canada’s nuclear waste problem is “solved,” erasing a major obstacle to a costly and dangerous expansion of nuclear power. Nuclear promoters are encouraging this misleading assumption.
Without a doubt, nuclear waste owners to the south are watching these developments closely. U.S. utilities and government have even more waste in temporary storage and no permanent solution in sight.
But is the waste problem solved? Even if (predictably), the industry deems its concept technically feasible, and even if WLON eventually decides it is a “willing host,” what about all the other communities impacted by this decision?
They must have their say. This means everyone along the transportation routes from southern Ontario and New Brunswick — let’s remember we are talking about three massive shipments per day for the next 40 years just for existing waste on the sometimes-treacherous highways of northern Ontario.
It also means all the downstream communities (including in Manitoba) whose waters would be affected by any release of radioactivity. Many Treaty 3 First Nations near the Revell site as well as the Grand Council of Treaty 3, Nishnawbe Aski Nation and Anishinabek Nation have already made statements opposing transportation and burial of nuclear waste in northern Ontario.
It’s telling that not a single community or First Nation other than Ignace and Wabigoon Lake has voiced support for the Revell site.
Since Ignace first expressed interest in 2009, both of those communities have been actively courted by the NWMO. Cash and other incentives are known to have been provided to Ignace. Little is publicly known about any agreements that may exist between NWMO and WLON. Those details may never be known as NWMO is mysteriously exempt from freedom of information requests (even though it claims to be transparent).
What is clear is that NWMO has not yet achieved its necessary goal of a “compelling demonstration of willingness.” What it has done is corrupted its own process by claiming consent where none exists, with the blessing of the federal government. Perhaps worst of all — and one might say this is historically predictable — it has created a situation in which neighbouring communities may end up pitted against each other.
Meanwhile, the nuclear waste problem is not “solved.”
Anne Lindsey volunteers with the No Nukes MB campaign of the Manitoba Energy Justice Coalition and has been monitoring nuclear waste since the 1980s. She lives in Winnipeg and spends time in Northwestern Ontario.
Putin’s huge, rusting nuclear battlecruisers symbolise Russian naval decline.
In losing nearly as much tonnage as it built in 2023, the Russian navy joins an exclusive and embarrassing club of stagnating navies that, startlingly, also includes the 886,000-ton – and shrinking – Royal Navy. In recent years, the British fleet has been decommissioning more and bigger vessels than it builds.
Apart from its submarines, the Kremlin will soon have only a coastal navy
David Axe, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/12/02/putin-naval-decline-kirov-class-nuclear-battlecruisers/
The hulking Kirov-class nuclear powered battlecruisers were symbols of Moscow’s naval strength during the later Soviet era. A generation later, they’re symbols of Moscow’s slow naval collapse.
The Soviets built four of the 28,000-ton, missile-armed vessels to lead far-ranging battle groups meant to confront Nato warships on the high seas. Three were commissioned in time to see service with the Soviet navy before the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991; the final vessel joined the Russian fleet in 1998 following years of construction delays.
That youngest Kirov, the Northern Fleet’s Pyotr Velikiy, is the only battlecruiser still in active service. She’s one of a dwindling number of big Soviet-vintage warships – including the rusty Admiral Kuznetsov, Russia’s sole aircraft carrier – that sustain Russia’s fading capacity for projecting maritime power across oceans.
A second old battlecruiser, Admiral Nakhimov, has been pierside at Sevmash shipyard in Severodvinsk, in northern Russia, since 1999. The farcical story of her planned return to service is indicative of Russia’s wider naval decline.
The Kremlin decided to return Admiral Nakhimov to service way back in 2008. Refurbishment got underway in 2013. Planned upgrades include the fitting of Kalibr and Oniks cruise missiles plus new sensors and communications. As recently as this fall, photos circulated online showing modest but visible progress with the installations.
But the work has been missing deadlines – for years. In 2014, the plan was for Admiral Nakhimov to return to service in 2020. She didn’t. As of 2018, the battlecruiser was supposed to recommission in 2021. A year later, the recommissioning slipped to 2022. That deadline came and went, as did the next deadline for a 2024 return to service. Now the plan is for Admiral Nakhimov to rejoin the fleet in 2026.
Don’t hold your breath. The costs of Russia’s 33-month wider war on Ukraine have driven up inflation and driven down investment in Russia. The economy is teetering. The costly effort to squeeze a few more years of front-line use from a 38-year-old warship may soon seem like an extravagance.
If and when the effort to reactivate Admiral Nakhimov finally fails, it could signal a new – and humbler – era for the Russian fleet.
In 2023, the Russian navy added just 6,300 tons to its total tonnage, ending the year with warships totalling 2,152,000 tons. The Russians would have added 17,700 tons last year through the new construction of a new frigate, corvettes, a minesweeper and a few submarines, but Ukrainian missiles and drones destroyed vessels together weighing 11,400 tons.
In losing nearly as much tonnage as it built in 2023, the Russian navy joins an exclusive and embarrassing club of stagnating navies that, startlingly, also includes the 886,000-ton – and shrinking – Royal Navy. In recent years, the British fleet has been decommissioning more and bigger vessels than it builds.
For the Russians, it mostly comes down to strategy, money … and engines. Big ships are expensive – and unnecessary for a country whose main strategic ambitions lie along its land border. The Russians still build plenty of modern nuclear-powered submarines and can deploy them to deter direct conflict with a major foe. Given that safeguard, a globally-deploying surface fleet is a luxury.
Which is fortunate for Russia’s leaders, as it’s not clear Russian industry could build big new warships even if it had the money to do so and a clear reason to try. Prior to 2014, Russian shipbuilders imported most of their large maritime engines from Ukraine. It should go without saying they no longer do so.
Lacking a source of new engines, it’s much easier for Russia to restore an old battlecruiser than to build a new one from scratch. It actually helps that Admiral Nakhimov has a nuclear powerplant, as Russian industry still manages to build and maintain those on its own.
When the last big Soviet ships finally sail for the last time, the Russian navy will become a mostly coastal navy – albeit one with a powerful undersea deterrent. Even if Admiral Nakhimov does rejoin the fleet and deploys a few more times, she’ll only delay that inevitability.
Lincolnshire county councillors demand answers on Nuclear Waste Services’ (NWS) proposed Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) at Theddlethorpe
By James Turner, Local Democracy Reporter, 03 December 2024
Lincolnshire county councillors demand answers on Nuclear Waste Services’
(NWS) proposed Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) at Theddlethorpe.
Concerned representatives have criticised the level of communication from
the government body behind a proposed underground nuclear waste facility.
Members of Lincolnshire County Council’s executive raised concerns about a
number of unanswered questions regarding Nuclear Waste Services’ (NWS)
proposed Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) during a meeting on Tuesday
(December 3) – specifically about where it could be built and, crucially,
whether it is safe. NWS was previously considering three sites to locate
the facility, which is estimated to cost between £20 billion and £53
billion, making it the largest planned infrastructure project in the UK.
Lincs Online 3rd Dec 2024 https://www.lincsonline.co.uk/louth/very-poor-communication-slammed-as-members-demand-to-know-9394650/
Backfilling of Gorleben salt mine (former German nuclear waste dump) starts
At left, The Gorleben mine was used as the German nuclear waste dump decades ago .
Backfilling has begun of the former salt mine in Gorleben, Lower Saxony –
previously considered a possible site for geological disposal of Germany’s
high-level radioactive waste.
Exploration work on the Gorleben rock salt
formation as a potential radioactive waste repository site began in 1977.
The federal government gave its approval for underground exploration at the
site in 1983, and excavation work began with the sinking of the first of
two shafts in 1986.
Work continued until June 2000 when, alongside plans
for the eventual phaseout of nuclear power in Germany, a three- to ten-year
moratorium was imposed on the Gorleben exploration work. This moratorium
was lifted in March 2010.
World Nuclear News 2nd Dec 2024, https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/backfilling-of-gorleben-mine-starts
Decommissioning old nuclear sites to cost £130bn in blow to Miliband
The figures mean the cost of the UK’s nuclear clean-up alone is close to the total value of electricity produced by atomic power stations since the 1950s.
If the cost of building Britain’s 20-odd past and present nuclear power stations were included – around £30bn each in today’s money – the total cost of several hundred billion pounds would far exceed the value of the power produced, say experts.
Expense to taxpayer of cleaning up former power plants is higher than previously estimated, say auditors
Jonathan Leake, Telegraph, 29 Nov 24
Ed Miliband faces a bill of almost £130bn to clean up Britain’s old nuclear sites after estimated costs jumped.
It will cost £128.8bn to safely wind down old facilities, according to an investigation by the National Audit Office (NAO) – £23.5bn more than previously expected, after factoring in the cost of shutting eight power stations that are currently operational.
Seven nuclear stations are due to shut down in 2028 at which point operator EDF, France’s state-owned energy firm, will hand them back to the British Government for decommissioning.
Another station, Sizewell B, is expected to keep operating into the 2030s when it too will be decommissioned at taxpayer expense.
The NAO report, which looked at the overall operation of Mr Miliband’s Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Desnz), said: “The current best estimate is that the eight existing sites will each cost £23.5bn to defuel and decommission.”
This is in addition to £105.3bn already set aside for dealing with other legacy projects, chiefly waste stockpiled at Sellafield in Cumbria.
Desnz oversees a Nuclear Liabilities Fund set up to save the money needed for decommissioning the eight stations, but the NAO said this had proven woefully inadequate.
It also warned that the final costs and taxpayer contributions could rise even higher.
The NAO said: “Costs could rise further, particularly if defuelling takes longer than planned … There is a risk that further taxpayer contributions may be required.”
However, the cost of decommissioning the UK’s remaining working nuclear stations is dwarfed by the amount which the NAO found was needed for dealing with legacy waste since the 1950s.
About 70pc of the costs relate to the Sellafield site in Cumbria, where thousands of tonnes of highly radioactive waste are stored in buildings and cooling ponds that are up to 70 years old – many considered extremely hazardous.
The figures mean the cost of the UK’s nuclear clean-up alone is close to the total value of electricity produced by atomic power stations since the 1950s.
Figures released by the Department of Energy and Climate Change show that since Britain’s first nuclear power station opened in 1956, they have generated 2.6bn megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity with a wholesale value of about £200bn at today’s prices.
If the cost of building Britain’s 20-odd past and present nuclear power stations were included – around £30bn each in today’s money – the total cost of several hundred billion pounds would far exceed the value of the power produced, say experts.
The NAO report also looked at the system of Contracts for Difference (CfD) – a financing method created by the UK to guarantee investors in wind farms, solar farms and nuclear power stations sufficient income.
Such schemes, it warned, were already set to cost consumers £89bn by the 2030s – but the final sums could be far higher because of unreliable estimates for the amount of power likely to be produced……………………… https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/11/29/decommissioning-old-nuclear-sites-to-cost-130bn-in-blow/
Suspected case of plutonium contamination in Rome plant
Worker at Casaccia research centre
suspected case of plutonium contamination of a worker was reported Friday at the Casaccia Research Center, on the outskirts of Rome.
The National Inspectorate for Nuclear Safety (ISIN) has announced that it is “following with the utmost attention the case of contamination recorded at the Plutonium plant of the Casaccia center” which involved a “worker on duty”.
South Bruce spared, but Ignace selected for Canadian nuclear waste dump
Nuclear Free Local Authorities, 29th November 2024
The Nuclear Waste Management Organisation – Canada’s equivalent to Britain’s Nuclear Waste Services – announced yesterday that they have selected Ignace in Ontario as their site for a Deep Geological Repository (DGR) into which Canada’s radioactive waste will be dumped.
The NWMO was established by the nuclear industry in 2002 charged with the disposal of the nation’s intermediate- and high-level radioactive waste.
The second candidate city of South Bruce, Ontario has been spared.
Both municipalities have recently held online public polls in which narrow, and contestable, results approved continued participation in the project. On 18 November, the Indigenous Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation, in whose Traditional Lands the DGR will be sited, also voted to continue their involvement in the process, which the NWMO took as a green light to select of Ignace. [i]
However, cynics might say one factor in the NWMO’s selection was the disparity in the money offer made to both municipalities for hosting the dump – Ignace was only promised $170 million over 81 years, whilst South Bruce stood to receive $418 million over 138.
The NFLAs, with other British activists opposed to nuclear waste dumps, have worked with Canadian colleagues in both municipalities and we are of course delighted for the people of South Bruce, but sad for those opposed to the plan in Ignace.
29th November 2024
South Bruce spared, but Ignace selected for Canadian nuclear waste dump
The Nuclear Waste Management Organisation – Canada’s equivalent to Britain’s Nuclear Waste Services – announced yesterday that they have selected Ignace in Ontario as their site for a Deep Geological Repository (DGR) into which Canada’s radioactive waste will be dumped.
The NWMO was established by the nuclear industry in 2002 charged with the disposal of the nation’s intermediate- and high-level radioactive waste.
The second candidate city of South Bruce, Ontario has been spared.
Both municipalities have recently held online public polls in which narrow, and contestable, results approved continued participation in the project. On 18 November, the Indigenous Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation, in whose Traditional Lands the DGR will be sited, also voted to continue their involvement in the process, which the NWMO took as a green light to select of Ignace. [i]
However, cynics might say one factor in the NWMO’s selection was the disparity in the money offer made to both municipalities for hosting the dump – Ignace was only promised $170 million over 81 years, whilst South Bruce stood to receive $418 million over 138.
The NFLAs, with other British activists opposed to nuclear waste dumps, have worked with Canadian colleagues in both municipalities and we are of course delighted for the people of South Bruce, but sad for those opposed to the plan in Ignace.
We, the Nuclear Free North, a campaign group has issued a statement condemning the lack of validity of the selection process, citing the fact that Ignace is not a willing community and asserting that the Indigenous vote did not represent specific consent for the project to go ahead. The statement appears below. [on original]……………………………………… more https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/south-bruce-spared-but-ignace-selected-for-canadian-nuclear-waste-dump/?fbclid=IwY2xjawG4gNxleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHZkzDLWOe6FmGY3lN1ERTX5hB05PLvbrI4k9fdn3iTiAWPvxUq-VMQaXKg_aem_NRkVOPIrb11UCVLX85-G1g
The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) Siting Process Fails to Achieve its Goal.
Nuclear Company Announces Site Selection Despite Major Missing Piece: a Willing Host
WE THE NUCLEAR FREE NORTH. November 29, 2024
| Wabigoon, Ontario – First Nations and opposition groups are denouncing the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s announcement that they have selected the Revell site in northwestern Ontario as their preferred location for a deep geological repository for all of Canada’s high-level nuclear fuel waste. “The NWMO announcement demonstrates the fickleness of the NWMO’s site selection process. It has allowed the NWMO to manufacture something they are calling consent, without actually gaining consent”, commented Charles Faust, a volunteer with We the Nuclear Free North and spokesperson for Nuclear Free Thunder Bay. “They were looking for consent for their project – the transportation, processing and burial of all of Canada’s high-level waste in the heart of Treaty 3 Territory. The closest they could get from Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation was consent to continue in the site characterization process. It’s a small victory which they are going to play big.” |
NWMO announced Thursday that they had selected Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation (WLON) and the Township of Ignace as the host communities for the future site for Canada’s deep geological repository for used nuclear fuel.
The two communities had been courted by the NWMO for over a decade as the nuclear waste company sought a declaration of “willingness” to have the Revell site used as a processing and burial site for the highly radioactive waste generated by nuclear power reactors. The Revell site is approximately equidistant between Ignace and Dryden and 20 km upstream from Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation, in the headwaters of both the Wabigoon and the Turtle-Rainy River watersheds.
NWMO has repeatedly said they would only proceed with an “informed and willing host”, which would have to make a “compelling demonstration of willingness”. In a statement released by Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation on November 18th following a community vote, WLON stated clearly that the referendum was to determine if WLON would progress into a site characterization process for NWMO’s project, and that “the yes vote does not signify approval of the project”.
Broad opposition to the project has been expressed by First Nations, municipalities and community organizations, including in a resolution passed by Grand Council Treaty #3 in October which affirmed an earlier declaration that made clear that a deep geological repository for nuclear waste would not be developed at any point in Treaty #3 Territory.
Opposition is expected to continue to grow following yesterday’s announcement, leading up to the start of a federal impact assessment process, which the NWMO says will get underway in 2028.
Tepco eyes second test removal of Fukushima nuclear fuel debris
Japan Times 29th Nov 2024, https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2024/11/29/japan/tepco-debris-removal-plan/
Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings is considering conducting a second test to remove nuclear fuel debris from one of the three meltdown-hit reactors at its Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, company officials said Thursday.
As in the previous test, Tepco plans to use a fishing rod-shaped device to remove the debris from the plant’s No. 2 reactor.
Tepco collected 0.7 gram of debris in the first test, which started in September and ended on Nov. 7. The debris is currently under analysis at the Japan Atomic Energy Agency.
Nuclear Regulation Authority Chairperson Shinsuke Yamanaka has asked the company to collect more debris to gather more data.
Some 880 tons of nuclear debris, a mixture of melted fuel and reactor parts, is estimated to remain in the No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 reactors at the plant, which was crippled by the March 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami.
Project 2025 calls for massive changes to Hanford nuclear cleanup
Project 2025 calls on the EPA to be an ally of DOE against the state, instead of being an independent regulator.
the bulk of Project 2025 was written by former Trump officials and allies.
Project 2025 sees reclassifying high-level wastes into low-activity wastes
The Heritage Foundation’s blueprint proposes reclassifying radioactive waste as something less dangerous so it can be disposed of more cheaply.
John Stang, November 20, 2024,
https://www.cascadepbs.org/politics/2024/11/project-2025-calls-massive-changes-hanford-nuclear-cleanup
ill the next presidential administration tinker with the Hanford nuclear reservation’s complicated cleanup of radioactive wastes?
Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s conservative blueprint for the future, offers some strong hints that cleanup plans for the nation’s most polluted nuclear site might change with or without the approval of the Washington Department of Ecology.
One Project 2025 idea recommends reclassifying highly radioactive wastes into something less dangerous so cheaper methods can be used to dispose of them. Another proposal is to speed up the cleanup by rerouting money to Hanford from a couple of huge Biden-era appropriations for jobs and infrastructure programs elsewhere. The third Hanford-related idea in Project 2025 posits that the state of Washington and the legally negotiated cleanup deadlines and standards are obstacles to completing the cleanup faster.
Gov. Jay Inslee’s office, the Washington Attorney General’s Office and the state Ecology Department all declined to comment on Project 2025’s plans for Hanford. However, Attorney General and Gov.-elect Bob Ferguson and Attorney General-elect Nick Brown recently held a press conference to announce the AG’s office and have spent months reviewing Project 2025 in preparation for possible litigation with the Trump administration. Ferguson and Brown said the ball is in the Trump administration’s court on whether it will provoke legal battles with Washington.
As attorney general, Ferguson — frequently with other attorneys general — filed several dozen lawsuits against the first Trump administration, losing only two or three. “No one has a record like that except Perry Mason,” Inslee said at a Nov. 6 press conference.
Arguably the most radioactively and chemically contaminated spot in the Western Hemisphere, the Hanford nuclear reservation’s cleanup is governed by a 35-year-old legal agreement called the Tri-Party Agreement. The state of Washington and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have repeatedly used this contract to force a sometimes foot-dragging U.S. Department of Energy to meet its legal standards and schedule to clean up the highly radioactive site.
But Project 2025 says the Washington government poses significant legal and political obstacles to cleaning up Hanford.
“Some states (and contractors) see [nuclear cleanup] as a jobs program and have little interest in accelerating the cleanup. [DOE’s nuclear cleanup program] needs to move to an expeditious program with targets for cleanup of sites. The Hanford site in Washington state is a particular challenge. The Tri-Party Agreement among DOE, the Environmental Protection Agency, and Washington State’s Department of Ecology has hampered attempts to accelerate and innovate the cleanup,” the 900-page Project 2025 document says. Nuclear cleanup is addressed on pages 394-396.
Project 2025 continues: “Hanford poses significant political and legal challenges with the State of Washington, and DOE will have to work with Congress to make progress in accelerating cleanup at that site. DOE and EPA need to work more closely to coordinate their responses to claims made under the TPA and work more aggressively for changes, including congressional action if necessary, to achieve workable cleanup goals.”
In other words, Project 2025 calls on the EPA to be an ally of DOE against the state, instead of being an independent regulator.
In reality, Washington has been the greatest force to push the federal government to stick to its legal schedules and meet agreed-upon cleanup standards. Hanford has had problems over the past three decades with keeping to the schedules and getting its engineering up to snuff to prevent future breakdowns.
The Project 2025 document does not elaborate on why it believes Washington’s Ecology Department is a hindrance. Washington’s congressional delegation has strongly supported the state and the Tri-Party Agreement on Hanford cleanup issues.
Project 2025 is a detailed master plan put together by the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation on how the Trump administration should govern. Much of it is highly controversial, focused on issues like immigration and crime. Presidential campaigner Donald Trump claimed he was unfamiliar with it. However, the bulk of Project 2025 was written by former Trump officials and allies.
Vice President-elect JD Vance wrote the foreword for another book authored by Project 2025’s leader Kevin Roberts, titled “Dawn’s Early Light.” The New York Times wrote that Vance’s foreword said the Heritage Foundation has been “the most influential engine of ideas for Republicans from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump.” Roberts wrote the foreword to the Project 2025 document. The New York Times recently wrote that Roberts plans to meet soon with Trump.
On Saturday, Trump named Chris Wright, CEO of Denver-based fracking company Liberty Energy, as his Secretary of Energy nominee. Wright is a major opponent of fighting climate change. For his first term, Trump’s selection for Energy was Rick Perry, who had called for abolishing the DOE when he ran for president, and was unaware that he would be in charge of cleaning up radioactive nuclear sites when he became energy secretary. Trump recently selected former New York congressman Lee Zeldin as the EPA’s head administrator. As a congressman, Zeldin boosted cleanup of Long Island Sound and wanted the United States to leave the Paris climate accords. But his environmental resume is thin beyond that.
The U.S. government set up Hanford in 1943 to create plutonium for the nation’s atomic bombs, including those exploded in New Mexico and over Nagasaki in 1945. That development work created many billions of gallons of chemical and radioactive wastes, the worst 56 million gallons of which were pumped into 177 underground tanks. About a third of those tanks leak. At least a million gallons of radioactive liquid has leaked into the ground, seeping into the aquifer 200 feet below and into the Columbia River, roughly seven miles away.
In 1989, the Washington Department of Ecology, DOE and the EPA signed the Tri-Party Agreement to govern Hanford’s cleanup with the state and EPA as the regulators enforcing that contract. The agreement has been modified many times. It originally called for Hanford to begin converting the underground tank wastes into glass in 2009 and finish by 2019. After several delays due to budget and technical problems, glassification is scheduled to begin in August 2025. The glassification project’s budget has grown from $4 billion to $17 billion, and is expected to expand to more than $30 billion. Legally, glassification is supposed to be finished by 2052, although future negotiations may push that back.
While the tank wastes are Hanford’s biggest program, the site has numerous other contamination problems. The entire 584-square-mile site is supposed to be cleaned up by 2091.
In 2020, DOE, the EPA and the state began four years of secret negotiations to revise the Tri-Party Agreement. Last April, the three parties unveiled tentative revisions. The three now are reviewing public comments on those proposed revisions before taking the changes to a federal judge for approval.
Those changes would not set a new completion date for glassifying the tank wastes, which is likely to be part of another negotiation. Right now, DOE expects glassification to be done by 2069, which is 17 years beyond the current legal deadline, according to a 2021 report by the Government Accountability Office.
Project 2025 calls for finishing all of Hanford’s cleanup by 2060. It recommends a massive study and remapping of the cleanup of Hanford and other nuclear sites across the nation. DOE has done this type of review a few times over the past 30 years, usually when a new presidential administration comes on board.
Hanford’s 56 million gallons of tank wastes consist of highly radioactive wastes and lesser radioactive wastes (dubbed “low-activity wastes”) mixed together in many of the same tanks. Hanford’s high-level wastes amount to 5 million to 6 million gallons. The Tri-Party Agreement calls for two plants to be built for dealing with low-activity wastes and a third to be built for handling high-level wastes. So far, one low-activity waste plant has been built.
That low-activity waste plant is scheduled to begin glassification in August 2025. A plant to separate high-level wastes from low-activity wastes along with the facility to glassify the high-level wastes are expected to be ready in the 2030s. These plans are all part of the current Tri-Party Agreement, with the revisions also calling for a newer approach for handling the radioactive waste: turning it into a cement-like substance called grout.
Grouting is easier and cheaper than glassification, but has not been extensively tested with Hanford’s chemically complex tank wastes. The grout must be shipped off-site, likely to disposal sites in either Utah or Texas. DOE and the state are still figuring out what type of grouting technology to use. Part of this agreed-upon new approach would reclassify any high-level wastes in 22 tanks aimed toward grouting into low-activity wastes.
Project 2025 sees reclassifying high-level wastes into low-activity wastes as a major step toward speeding up cleanup, although it does not address whether DOE should be able to reclassify wastes beyond the 22 tanks.
“A central challenge at Hanford is the classification of radioactive waste. High-Level Waste (HLW) and Low-Level Waste (LLW) classifications drive the remediation and disposal process. Under President Trump, significant changes in waste classification from HLW to LLW enabled significant progress on remediation. Implementation needs to continue across the complex, particularly at Hanford,” the Project 2025 document said.
Still unknown is whether the state — which has been skeptical about widespread use of grout — would go along with grouting high-level wastes beyond those 22 tanks. One indication of the Ecology Department’s reluctance is that the high-level waste glassification plant and the waste separation facility have been kept in the proposed Tri-Party Agreement revisions.
Meanwhile, Project 2025 calls for appropriating more money toward Hanford’s cleanup. However, that money would be taken from projects nationwide covered by 2022’s Inflation Reduction Act and 2021’s Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
The Infrastructure Investment Act provides money for federal highways, transit, research, hazardous materials work, broadband access, clean water projects and improving electric grids.
The Inflation Reduction Act covers greatly reduced insulin costs, a huge number of climate change-related projects including reducing greenhouse emissions, drought-related measures for the western states, boosting subsidies for the Affordable Care Act, supporting vaccine coverage, increasing tax enforcement by the Internal Revenue Service, and paying for new energy projects.
Hunterston B decommissioning approved
The UK Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) has granted consent to EDF
Energy’s application to start decommissioning the Hunterston B nuclear
power station. This follows a public consultation and a detailed assessment
by ONR specialist inspectors of EDF’s environmental statement.
The
statement included a detailed environmental impact assessment (EIA) for the
proposed decommissioning project at the North Ayrshire site in Scotland,
along with mitigation measures designed to prevent or reduce any
significant adverse environmental impacts.
The EIA identified two
significant impacts during decommissioning: temporary adverse visual impact
of dismantling activities of the power station for local residents and the
socioeconomic effects on the regional employment market and workers at
Hunterston B released from their roles during phases of the project. ONR
said it is satisfied that the environmental statement proposes adequate
mitigation measures to address these factors and considers the statement to
be complete, of the right quality, and in line with relevant good
practices.
Nuclear Engineering International 19th Nov 2024 https://www.neimagazine.com/news/hunterston-b-decommissioning-approved/
Missing: One nuclear waste dump site. Answers to the name of GDF.
NFLA 14th Nov 2024
Forgive our tongue-in-check headline, but to the UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities it appears from an announcement this week that Nuclear Waste Services has lost its preferred nuclear waste dump site in Lincolnshire.
After three years, the former Theddlethorpe Gas Terminal has seemingly slipped the leash of the Geological Disposal Facility and is now being petted by other energy projects, such as a plan to bring in carbon capture and storage technology to the site, which have the potential to be built out in a few years rather than a few decades. Sadly, there appears no prospect of a return to agricultural use as was promised by planners when operations ceased at the terminal.
In the recently published admission, NWS siting and communities Director Simon Hughes candidly advises that whilst the search had been focused on creating a surface site at the former gas terminal to receive shipments of high-level radioactive waste: ‘Over the past year, competing interests in the gas terminal site have matured and it is important we factor these into our approach. We are undertaking a range of studies in the search area and are considering other options for the GDF surface site.’
To the NFLAs this rather suggests that the NWS team will now be scurrying around every nook and cranny of the Theddlethorpe Search Area, desperately hunting to find what they deem to be a potential suitable 1-kilometre square surface site. And seemingly in a hurry too as Mr Hughes also advises in the NWS announcement that ‘we will publish an update early next year and our teams will be out in communities to explain our findings, hear feedback and consider next steps.’……………….
To the NFLAs, the change in circumstances must surely represent a significant setback both to the prospects and timescale of the project, but this is also an opportunity to take decisive action to end it.
For if NWS really wants to hear feedback it has been clear from the start that most local elected officials and members of the community are against this project. Recent surveys have indicated that public sentiment is overwhelmingly of the opinion that GDF is a dog that has had its day and that this unwanted blight will have a massive economic impact on a seaside community dependent on tourism.
Time then to put it out of its misery.
……………………………In a circular to his fellow Councillors on East Lindsey District Council, Theddlethorpe and Withern District Councillor Travis Hesketh, who was overwhelmingly elected on an anti-GDF ticket, appears to suggest the former decisive action:
‘After 3 ½ years, suddenly NWS change tack. They are wandering aimlessly like a zombie trying desperately to find a home for nuclear waste. There is no plan, no local support and clear evidence that a nuclear dump would be catastrophic for the coastal visitor economy. As councillors we need to work together to stop this project. A GDF project has been described as a timeshare, easy to get into but very hard to get out of. Before this goes any further let’s take control and chart our own destiny.’………………………. https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/missing-one-nuclear-waste-dump-site-answers-to-the-name-of-gdf/
Let’s be honest about nuclear waste, please
Elly Foster, 19th October 2024, https://www.cambrian-news.co.uk/opinion/elly-foster-lets-be-honest-about-nuclear-waste-please-728497?fbclid=IwY2xjawGjYhhleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHR3h-H6mNK0lqJo0YWuLUygtj2lAJfQ4D4REpSwouKSrpGR8MIhGn3-udg_aem_3qvtVo9K841CI82s0PxUkA
Climate campaigners have welcomed Angela Rayner’s decision to stop a new deep coal mine being opened in Whitehaven, Cumbria. There’s more to this story. The Chief Executive Officer of West Cumbria Mining Ltd is Mark Kirkbride. His second job is on the Radioactive Waste Management Committee advising the Government how to deal with the massive stockpile of radioactive waste from our nuclear power stations.
Mark’s answer: dig a huge hole, 25 square km, under the Irish Sea, and bury it.In the industry’s parlance this is called a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF). Mark would’ve liked the coal pit next to the nuclear waste dump.
Nuclear Decommissioning Services Market Expected to Reach $11.79 Billion by 2034 – BIS Research
Industry Today 12th Nov 2024
As nuclear facilities worldwide reach the end of their operational lives, the nuclear decommissioning services market is witnessing substantial growth. The Nuclear Decommissioning Services Market is projected to grow from $6.70 billion in 2024 to $11.79 billion by 2034, fueled by the rising number of decommissioned nuclear facilities and the increasing emphasis on sustainable practices.
Published 12 November 2024
Market Overview
Market Size and Growth Rate
The Nuclear Decommissioning Services Market is projected to grow from $6.70 billion in 2024 to $11.79 billion by 2034, at a CAGR of 5.81% during the forecast period. This growth is driven by the escalating number of decommissioned reactors and a shift toward stringent regulatory frameworks prioritizing safe and sustainable decommissioning processes. …………………………………………………..
Demand Drivers
The market is significantly driven by the retirement of aging nuclear facilities, increased regulatory scrutiny, and advancements in decommissioning technology. Environmental sustainability mandates are pushing the demand for efficient and compliant decommissioning solutions.
Challenges
Complex regulatory requirements and high costs remain key challenges. Additionally, the intricate nature of nuclear waste disposal raises concerns over potential delays and budget overruns in large-scale decommissioning projects. …………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The successful [whaaa-aa-aat!] decommissioning of Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant highlights the potential for advanced decommissioning technology to manage complex sites safely and efficiently. ……………………………………………..https://industrytoday.co.uk/energy_and_environment/nuclear-decommissioning-services-market-expected-to-reach-1179-billion-by-2034-bis-research
1 This Month
9 September – online public forum THREE MILE ISLAND:
7-8:30 PM ET,
Legacy, resistance to reopening – https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_-LGJU4j6TD2Hgf0rpgAr1A#/registration
The nuclear industry and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission are threatening to restart Pennsylvania’s permanently closed and decommissioning Three Mile Island Unit 1 nuclear power station. Three expert speakers will present the resistance to this dangerous misadventure in a webinar hosted by the Clamshell Alliance, Beyond Nuclear and Massachusetts Peace Action.
No Nuclear in Cwm Llynfi! Stop the nuclear power station near Maesteg.
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- September 2026 (12)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (375)
-
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 