nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Two small communities are competing to receive Canada’s inventory of nuclear waste. They can’t be sure what they’ll get

“They’re basically surrendering any kind of fundamental right of public dissent on the part of the mayor and town council,”

“We’re talking about binding future generations.”

The Globe and Mail, MATTHEW MCCLEARN,  JUNE 10, 2024

Two Ontario municipalities are vying to become hosts for an underground disposal facility for Canada’s nuclear waste. Both must formally announce in the coming months whether they’ll accept the facility – but they cannot know exactly what wastes they’d be agreeing to receive.

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) designed its $26-billion facility, known as a deep geological repository, to receive spent fuel from Candu reactors located in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick. This year, it plans to choose between the last two sites still in the running: the Municipality of South Bruce, Ont., located more than 120 kilometres north of London; or near Ignace, Ont., a town of 1,200 more than 200 kilometres northwest of Thunder Bay.

But since the project was conceived, two of NWMO’s three members (Ontario Power Generation and New Brunswick Power) proposed to build new reactors that would burn different fuels and produce novel wastes. The organization guarantees reactor developers that it will dispose of these wastes, even though their nature might not be understood for decades. And in the past few months, both candidate municipalities signed agreements that spell out how the project could be modified to receive such wastes, while limiting their ability to refuse.

These provisions help reduce uncertainty for the nuclear industry. A roadmap produced last year by the Nuclear Energy Institute, a U.S. lobby group, noted that because most small modular reactors (SMRs)being developed would burn different fuels from those of existing reactors, “technology neutral” criteria for accepting spent fuel into repositories was needed as soon as this year in both Canada and the United States.

But the provisions could make it harder to find willing hosts.

Ignace will decide through a council resolution whether it will accept the repository by July 30. South Bruce will hold a by-election in late October.

Consent from First Nations is also required. NWMO spokesperson Fred Kuntz said the organization is negotiating hosting agreements with both Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation for the Ignace project and Saugeen Ojibway Nation for the one in South Bruce. Both are in a position to effectively halt the project, and both have indicated they are not open to accepting SMR wastes at this time.

Mark Winfield, a professor of environmental and urban change at York University, said the NWMO’s decision to accept responsibility for non-Candu wastes means the host communities can’t know the nature of some of the waste they’ll receive, nor the quantity.

“They really are being asked for a blank cheque.”

Canada’s waste inventory includes 3.3 million Candu fuel bundles as of last year, and grows by about 90,000 annually. Each is about the size of a firelog and weighs slightly less than 20 kilograms. They’re highly radioactive upon removal from a reactor, and must be stored in pools of water for about a decade before they can be moved to storage containers. Utilities have considerable experience handling the bundles, and the industry has developed copper-clad containers to place them in, which in turn would be encased in bentonite clay in underground chambers.

The municipalities also agreed to accept fuel owned by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., a Crown corporation that operated several research reactors. There are dozens of types of wastes from these reactors, in far smaller amounts.

The hosting agreements detail what the NWMO is offering in return. South Bruce says it’s expecting $418-million over nearly a century and a half. Ignace anticipates $170-million. Jake Pastore, a spokesperson for Ignace, said its lower amount in part reflects the fact that the repository’s site is more than 30 kilometres west of the town, whereas the South Bruce site is on farmland within its boundaries and subject to local taxes.

And the agreements clarify what the repository won’t be receiving: Both agreements explicitly prohibit storing liquid nuclear waste. Waste originating from another country is similarly verboten.

Beyond these provisions, however, the agreements afford the industry considerable flexibility.

Ignace has agreed that the repository could accept spent fuel from SMRs and other non-Candu sources, provided a licence application has been filed with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. The commission is considering three SMR-related applications.

The agreement also lays out a process by which the repository’s scope can be changed to accept other forms of spent fuel. Mr. Pastore said the NWMO would have to complete an “intense” regulatory review before introducing non-approved wastes. The organization has provided assurances, he added, that it would not bring such wastes unless there was “full agreement on moving forward.”

Both agreements contain dispute-resolution mechanisms, but the municipalities have agreed to support the NWMO in any regulatory process, including proposals to modify the project’s scope. Ignace has agreed not to support any resident or other municipality that opposes a regulatory approval sought by the organization.

“They’re basically surrendering any kind of fundamental right of public dissent on the part of the mayor and town council,” said Gordon Edwards, a consultant who runs a non-profit organization called the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility.

“We’re talking about binding future generations.”

South Bruce’s agreement is less permissive than Ignace’s. It doesn’t make direct references to accepting SMR wastes. And it stipulates that before making a regulatory application to modify the repository’s scope, the NWMO must notify the municipality at least three years in advance. ……………………………………………………..

The types of waste produced in Canada could change significantly if the nuclear industry’s plans come to fruition.

Candus consume natural uranium with minuscule concentrations of the more fissile uranium-235. But most reactors in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere use “enriched” fuel containing higher quantities of U-235. Virtually all SMRs would use enriched fuels. And some would use exotic fuels for which there is limited international experience.

For example, New Brunswick Power proposes to build an ARC-100 reactor at its Point Lepreau plant, which would use a metallic uranium alloy fuel. The vendor, ARC Clean Technologies, said its reactor will need to be refuelled only every 20 years, and wastes from the proposed facility “will be fully characterized” and placed in appropriately sized and approved on-site storage containers while awaiting final disposal.

New Brunswick Power also seeks to build a molten salt reactor called the Stable Salt Reactor-Wasteburner. A 2021 study of reactor technologies by the Union of Concerned Scientists warned that all molten salt reactors it reviewed lacked “a well-formulated plan for management and disposal” of spent fuel.

“There’s so many different SMR designs, and I don’t think we can predict, in 2024, if many or any of them are ever going to go into production,” said Brennain Lloyd, a project co-ordinator with the environmental group Northwatch, which opposes the Ignace repository.

“But there’s potential that we could have a number of different designs, and all of them might behave differently. That’s a dog’s breakfast of additional risk.”………………………………………………………………………………

The Saugeen Ojibway Nation,from whom the industry seeks consent, has objected in writing to receiving SMR waste in its territory, adding that this “fundamental change in circumstances” means its discussions with the NWMO must be “reset.” It said its concerns about these wastes have not been addressed, and it’s not satisfied with the information it provided. “The ground is shifting beneath us, and the original project description no longer reflects the reality,” it declared in a regulatory submission in November.

In an interview, Chief Gregory Nadjiwon of the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation – one of the two member nations of Saugeen Ojibway Nation – said his organization is looking for resolution to wastes that have long been in its territory at the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station. It’s disinclined to receive wastes from other Candu stations outside its territory, let alone from SMRs.

“If you have a complex issue that hasn’t been resolved, why would you add another layer to it?”

………………………………………………………………. More controversial still is the possibility that the repository might accept wastes from reprocessing – which means applying physical and chemical processes to spent fuel to recover fissionable products, which could be used for new reactor fuel.

……………………………………… Mr. Edwards said that when a Candu fuel bundle is demolished for reprocessing, all of the radioactive materials contained within are released into a solid or liquid form. “You no longer have these nicely packaged fuel bun

Mr. Edwards said that reprocessing is the dirtiest segment of nuclear fuel chains. Sites where it has taken place, such as Hanford, Wash., in the U.S., Sellafield in Britain, and La Hague in France, are heavily contaminated and could cost hundreds of billions of dollars to clean up. The two candidate municipalities should have obtained legally binding vetoes against receiving reprocessing wastes, he said.

“Otherwise, they’re being led by the nose, assuming that one thing is going to happen when instead, something very different may end up happening – something that’s much more threatening to the community.”dles, you have something that’s much more complex and more difficult to manage.”

Documents released by New Brunswick Power under the province’s freedom of information legislation, and supplied to The Globe and Mail by nuclear issues researcher and activist Susan O’Donnell, show the corporation regarded long-term storage of reprocessing wastes as critical for attracting investors for its next-generation reactor projects.  https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-two-small-communities-are-competing-to-receive-canadas-inventory-of/—

June 13, 2024 Posted by | Canada, wastes | Leave a comment

Are the prospects for Small Modular Reactors being exaggerated? Five key characteristics examined

June 11, 2024 by Ed Lyman, Ed Lyman is Director, Nuclear Power Safety, at the Union of Concerned Scientists

Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are being presented as the next generation of nuclear technology. While traditional plants face cost overruns and safety issues, SMRs are seen by their champions as cheaper, safer, and faster to deploy. But Ed Lyman at UCS cites evidence that cast these claims into doubt.

In five sections of this article, he lists the reasons why. SMRs are not more economical than large reactors. SMRs are not generally safer or more secure than traditional large light-water reactors. SMRs will not reduce the problem of disposal of radioactive waste. SMRs cannot be counted on to provide reliable and resilient off-the-grid power (for facilities like data centres, bitcoin mining, hydrogen or petrochemical production). SMRs do not use fuel more efficiently than large reactors.

And where problems might be ironed out over time, the learning cycle of such technology is measured in decades during which costs will remain very high. SMRs may have a role to play in our energy future, says Lyman, but only if they are sufficiently safe and secure, along with a realistic understanding of their costs and risks.

Even casual followers of energy and climate issues have probably heard about the alleged wonders of small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). This is due in no small part to the “nuclear bros”: an active and seemingly tireless group of nuclear power advocates who dominate social media discussions on energy by promoting SMRs and other “advanced” nuclear technologies as the only real solution for the climate crisis. But as I showed in my 2013 and 2021 reports, the hype surrounding SMRs is way overblown, and my conclusions remain valid today.

Unfortunately, much of this SMR happy talk is rooted in misinformation, which always brings me back to the same question: if the nuclear bros have such a great SMR story to tell, why do they have to exaggerate so much?

What are SMRs?

SMRs are nuclear reactors that are “small” (defined as 300 megawatts of electrical power or less), can be largely assembled in a centralised facility, and would be installed in a modular fashion at power generation sites. Some proposed SMRs are so tiny (20 megawatts or less) that they are called “micro” reactors. SMRs are distinct from today’s conventional nuclear plants, which are typically around 1,000 megawatts and were largely custom-built. Some SMR designs, such as NuScale, are modified versions of operating water-cooled reactors, while others are radically different designs that use coolants other than water, such as liquid sodium, helium gas, or even molten salts.

To date, however, theoretical interest in SMRs has not translated into many actual reactor orders. The only SMR currently under construction is in China. And in the United States, only one company — TerraPower, founded by Microsoft’s Bill Gates — has applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a permit to build a power reactor (but at 345 megawatts, it technically isn’t even an SMR).

The nuclear industry has pinned its hopes on SMRs primarily because some recent large reactor projects, including Vogtle units 3 and 4 in the state of Georgia, have taken far longer to build and cost far more than originally projected. The failure of these projects to come in on time and under budget undermines arguments that modern nuclear power plants can overcome the problems that have plagued the nuclear industry in the past.

Developers in the industry and the US Department of Energy say that SMRs can be less costly and quicker to build than large reactors and that their modular nature makes it easier to balance power supply and demand. They also argue that reactors in a variety of sizes would be useful for a range of applications beyond grid-scale electrical power, including providing process heat to industrial plants and power to data centres, cryptocurrency mining operations, petrochemical production, and even electrical vehicle charging station

Here are five facts about SMRs that the nuclear industry and the “nuclear bros” who push its message don’t want you, the public, to know.

1. SMRs are not more economical than large reactors. 2. SMRs are not generally safer or more secure than large light-water reactors. 3. SMRs will not reduce the problem of what to do with radioactive waste. 4. SMRs cannot be counted on to provide reliable and resilient off-the-grid power for facilities, such as data centers, bitcoin mining, hydrogen or petrochemical production. 5. SMRs do not use fuel more efficiently than large reactors

Continue reading →

June 12, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, ENERGY, Reference, safety, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, wastes | Leave a comment

China urges long-term supervision over Japan’s radioactive water discharge

08-Jun-2024. CGTN  https://news.cgtn.com/news/2024-06-08/China-urges-strict-supervision-over-Japan-radioactive-water-discharge-1ugaDo6lH8I/p.html
A Chinese envoy on Friday called for strict, independent and effective long-term international supervision over Japan’s discharge of nuclear-contaminated wastewater from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the ocean.

Japan has recently carried out its sixth round of the Fukushima wastewater release. The Chinese envoy stated that the discharge continues to raise deep concerns among the international community, especially among Japan’s neighboring countries.

Li Song, China’s permanent representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), expressed doubts about the long-term reliability of Japan’s wastewater purification equipment, the effectiveness of the current monitoring arrangements, the weak supervision from the Japanese government, and the chaotic management of the Tokyo Electric Power Company, the Fukushima plant’s operator, during a meeting of the agency’s board of governors.

Li stressed the importance and urgency of establishing a long-term international supervision mechanism for nuclear-contaminated wastewater discharge as an addition to the regulation of the Japanese government and monitoring by Japanese nuclear power regulators, rather than replacing them.

He emphasized that only through such an arrangement can Japan dispel the concerns and panic of the people of China and other stakeholder countries. Such an arrangement is also conducive to further strengthening the authority and function of the IAEA in the field of international nuclear security and serves the fundamental interests of Japan and the Japanese people, Li added.

The Chinese envoy also stated that China and Japan have agreed to find an appropriate solution to the issue of the Fukushima wastewater discharge through consultation and negotiation. China hopes that Japan will show sincerity, seriously address the legitimate concerns from home and abroad, earnestly fulfill its responsibilities and obligations, and join hands with China, the IAEA, and the international community to work out more effective supervision measures to ensure that the Fukushima wastewater release will not cause long-term harm to the marine environment and humankind.

June 11, 2024 Posted by | Japan, oceans, wastes | Leave a comment

No nuke waste down under: Nuclear Free Local Authorities spokesperson receives assurance MOD still committed to decommissioning British nuclear subs at home

Nuclear Free Local Authorities, 4 June 24

Defence chiefs have written to the NFLA Spokesperson on Nuclear Submarine Decommissioning reassuring him that ‘the Ministry of Defence remains committed to disposing its decommissioned submarines, including the waste they produce, within the UK’.

Councillor Brian Goodall, who represents the Rosyth Ward in Scotland where decommissioning is currently taking place, wrote to the outgoing Defence and Foreign Secretaries on 17 May seeking their assurance that redundant British nuclear submarines will not be sent to Australia for disposal.

In Australia, in relation to the AUKUS defence pact, legislators have proposed a new Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2024, which appears to provide under Clauses 7 and 12 of the Bill for the disposal of high level radioactive waste from British and American submarines on Australian soil, and also for the storage of such materials in Australia from ‘a submarine that is not complete (for example, because it is being constructed or disposed of)’.

Councillor Goodall is concerned that this could theoretically mean the British Government ‘permitting towing redundant UK boats from Rosyth and Devonport down under for disposal’. Councillor Goodall fears that, were this to become practice and not just theory, local expertise and the jobs of his constituents could be lost.

In their response, defence officials say they continue to work on completing the decommissioning of the submarine Swiftsure at Rosyth by 2026 ‘by adopting a unique approach that will maximise the amount of the submarine that can be recycled and minimise the amount of waste that needs to be disposed of’. Radioactive waste will be taken to Capenhurst, Cheshire for interim storage until a Geological Disposal Facility is completed for its eventual disposal. This includes the reactor from each dismantled submarine.

Knowledge acquired as a result of the submarine decommissioning work will be shared by the MOD with Australia.

The letter sent to Lord Cameron and Grant Shapps on 17 May read:……………………………………………………… more https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/no-nuke-waste-down-under-nflas-spokesperson-receives-assurance-mod-still-committed-to-decommissioning-british-nuclear-subs-at-home/

June 6, 2024 Posted by | decommission reactor | Leave a comment

Plutonium found in Indiana Street air filters near Rocky Flats; Boulder Commissioners reconsider trail project

High winds carry plutonium-laden dirt from former weapons plant to filters on Indiana Street, experts say

ARVADA PRESS, by Rylee Dunn, May 30, 2024

A recent discovery of plutonium in air filters on Indiana Street near Rocky Flats has given Boulder County Commissioners pause as they appear to reconsider involvement in the Rocky Mountain Greenway Project trail system.

The Greenway project began in 2016 as an effort to connect three National Wildlife Refuges — Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Two Ponds and Rocky Flats — through an interconnected trail system. 

The project calls for the installation of an underpass connecting Rocky Flats to Boulder Open Space through the Rock Creek Corridor and an overpass to connect Westminster trails to the Greenway. 

When gale-force winds hit on April 6, chemist and DU Professor Michael Ketterer and retired FBI agent Jon Lipsky — who led the 1989 raid of Rocky Flats that eventually led to the plant being shut down and designated as an EPA Superfund site — set up air filters in three locations nearby to conduct a study on the contaminated soil’s activities in high winds.

Ketterer said he has taken air filter samples near Rocky Flats a handful of times, but that the high wind event of April 6 drew special interest because dirt was visibly moving in the air. 

“We both observed large, rapidly moving suspended dust clouds extending from ground level up to heights of hundreds of feet, originating from areas on the (Central Operating Unit of Rocky Flats) and/or contaminated buffer zone,” Ketterer said in an affidavit written after collecting the samples. 

Two samples were collected along Indiana Street while high winds were blowing from the west. Ketterer sent the samples to the radiochemistry lab at Northern Arizona University, where scientists used mass spectronomy to study the filters.

“Plutonium was unequivocally detected in the two Indiana Street air filters,” a statement from Ketterer said. “With less than 30 minutes sample collection time, quantities ranging from 47 to 128 milligrams of filter ash were recovered from air filters; plutonium was detected in all six of the individual preparations of ash from the two Indiana Street samples.”

The concern surrounding Ketterer’s findings, he says, is that if the Greenway is constructed, increased foot traffic will spread the contaminated soil to neighboring communities.

“The more that people walk on the refuge, and the more land use that is taking place… undisturbed soil is pretty well protected against wind erosion, but once people and animals start walking on the development, then the erodibility, if you will, of the soil surface is going to greatly increase,” Ketterer said.

He added that this could mean more contaminated soil being transported off the refuge toward neighboring properties.

Radioactive plutonium is a material that is produced by nuclear reactors, and has been known to cause lung, bone and liver cancer in people exposed to it, according to the CDC. 

The two isotopes of plutonium Ketterer found near Rocky Flats are 239 and 240, which have a “fingerprint” that confirms they originated at the former nuclear weapons plant. 

Now, Ketterer’s findings are giving some governmental agencies pause about the construction of the Greenway Project, which calls for the Federal Highway Administration to install the underpass and overpass. 

At an April 4 Boulder County Commissioners meeting, Lipsky warned county leaders of the dangers of building such structures on the site, referencing the Colorado State construction standard that forbids building when more than 0.9 picocuries per gram are found in soil.

Ketterer’s recent samples ranged from 0.15 to 1.19 picocuries of plutonium per gram of soil.

“I have a couple concerns: there is going to be digging, and the standard at Rocky Flats changes dramatically, exponentially, when it goes below three feet,” Lipsky said. “If it goes below six feet, there is no standard, and there’s no consideration for the workers, no consideration for the residents, like Superior, that will be receiving contaminants from this digging.”

Ketterer also gave comment at the April 4 meeting and did not mince words in his caution to commissioners.

“Commissioners, it’s not a marvelous idea to dig up and disturb plutonium-contaminated soils,” Ketterer said. “It’s all very unsettling to me. Not only do the soils near Rocky Flats and the Indiana Street corridor have plutonium in them, but a lot of it is in these discreet particles… I think this whole area is generously sprinkled with that.

“Commissioners,” Ketterer continued, “Rocky Flats is just one of the unsettling places in the U.S. and the world that we should worry about plutonium at — there’s a whole mess of uncontained plutonium at the central operating unit (of Rocky Flats) buried under… and we’re seeing a few breadcrumbs on the surface.”

………………………………………………………. legal action was brought in January when the advocacy group Physicians for Social Responsibility Colorado filed a lawsuit that seeks to block construction of trails in and around Rocky Flats. That litigation is ongoing as of press time………………………………….  https://coloradocommunitymedia.com/2024/05/30/plutonium-found-in-indiana-street-air-filters-near-rocky-flats-boulder-commissioners-reconsider-trail-project/

June 3, 2024 Posted by | - plutonium, USA | Leave a comment

Fukushima nuclear debris removal to begin as early as August

Crucial work at devastated plant has been delayed for three years

AYAKA OTAKA, Nikkei staff writer, May 31, 2024,

TOKYO — Trial removal of melted fuel rods at the tsunami-hit Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant will begin as early as August, Tokyo Electric Power Co. Holdings announced on Thursday, a critical step in a decommissioning process that is expected to take decades. 

Removal of the fuel rods, which is now three years behind schedule, had been slated to start by October, but TEPCO now says it will happen between August and October. Necessary equipment will be set up at the plant in northeastern Japan as early as July.

“We will continue to proceed with the work carefully, with safety as our top priority, so as not to impact the surrounding environment,” said Akira Ono, the TEPCO official in charge of decommissioning efforts.

The radioactive debris consists of fuel and other materials that melted, then cooled and solidified, after the plant lost power in the devastating March 2011 tsunami. An estimated 880 tonnes of debris are in reactor units 1 to 3.

As the melted fuel is highly radioactive, people cannot come near it, and removal must be done in small amounts to prevent leakage during the process.

A device similar to a fishing rod will be used to carry out the work. On Tuesday, a video was released showing the device being tested at a Mitsubishi Heavy Industries shipyard in Kobe, using a full-scale model of a nuclear reactor.

According to TEPCO, a 3- to 4-meter cable with a mechanical claw will be hung from the device down towards the bottom of the reactor. Less than 3 grams can be collected at a time.

Shortening shifts to reducing workers’ exposure to radiation will be necessary. The trial removal is expected to take about two weeks.

Removal was originally to be carried out in 2021. The plan was to use a robot arm to remove the debris, but development of the arm was delayed. A large amount of non-fuel debris blocking access also caused delays………………………………

The government has said that it will take 30 years to 40 years from the 2011 incident to decommission the plant. 

The reactor building cannot be dismantled unless the debris is removed. Cooling water, as well as rainwater, that comes in contact with the debris becomes contaminated.

TEPCO began releasing treated wastewater in August 2023, but as long as the debris remains, the cycle of water being contaminated and requiring treatment and release will continue.

Some critics say the government’s decommissioning plan is unrealistic. The process could take more than 100 years, say some scientists in the Atomic Energy Society of Japan. After the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in the former Soviet Union, decommissioning was abandoned, and a shelter structure was built to completely cover the area with radioactive waste.

There is also the issue of how to dispose of soil and rubble contaminated by scattered radioactive materials. The government has promised to transport this waste outside of Fukushima prefecture by 2045, but a destination has not been decided.  https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Environment/Fukushima-nuclear-debris-removal-to-begin-as-early-as-August

June 1, 2024 Posted by | Fukushima continuing, wastes | Leave a comment

A robot will soon try to remove melted nuclear fuel from destroyed Fukushima reactor

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, May 29, 2024,  https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/15284702

The operator of Japan’s destroyed Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant demonstrated Tuesday how a remote-controlled robot would retrieve tiny bits of melted fuel debris from one of three damaged reactors later this year for the first time since the 2011 meltdown.

Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings plans to deploy a “telesco-style” extendable pipe robot into Fukushima No. 2 reactor to test the removal of debris from its primary containment vessel by October.

That work is more than two years behind schedule. The removal of melted fuel was supposed to begin in late 2021 but has been plagued with delays, underscoring the difficulty of recovering from the magnitude 9.0 quake and tsunami in 2011.

During the demonstration at the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries’ shipyard in Kobe, western Japan, where the robot has been developed, a device equipped with tongs slowly descended from the telescopic pipe to a heap of gravel and picked up a granule.

TEPCO plans to remove less than 3 grams (0.1 ounce) of debris in the test at the Fukushima plant.

“We believe the upcoming test removal of fuel debris from Unit 2 is an extremely important step to steadily carry out future decommissioning work,” said Yusuke Nakagawa, a TEPCO group manager for the fuel debris retrieval program. “It is important to proceed with the test removal safely and steadily.”

About 880 tons of highly radioactive melted nuclear fuel remain inside the three damaged reactors. Critics say the 30- to 40-year cleanup target set by the government and TEPCO for Fukushima Daiichi is overly optimistic. The damage in each reactor is different, and plans must accommodate their conditions.

Better understanding the melted fuel debris from inside the reactors is key to their decommissioning. TEPCO deployed four mini drones into the No. 1 reactor’s primary containment vessel earlier this year to capture images from the areas where robots had not reached.

May 31, 2024 Posted by | Fukushima continuing, wastes | Leave a comment

Pledge sought that laid-up Rosyth subs won’t go to Australia


By Clare Buchanan 27 May 24,  https://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/24344727.pledge-sought-laid-up-rosyth-subs-wont-go-australia/

A ROSYTH councillor has called for assurances that rotting nuclear submarines will not be sent to Australia for disposal.

Brian Goodall, who is UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authority’s spokesperson on nuclear submarine decommissioning, said he has written to the UK’s foreign and defence secretaries. 

He’s asked for confirmation that vessels will not go overseas if a new Australian law passes without amendments.

Seven old subs have been laid up at Rosyth Dockyard for decades with Dreadnought being there for the longest – more than 40 years – waiting to be scrapped.

The UK and USA signed a pact with Australia to build and operate a new fleet of nuclear submarines which includes the provision of new conventionally armed, but nuclear powered, vessels for the Australian Navy.

To support the pact, legislators down under have proposed a new Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2024.

This appears to allow the disposal of high level radioactive waste from British and American submarines on Australian soil, and also for the storage of such materials in Australia from “a submarine that is not complete”.

In his letter to Lord Cameron and Grant Shapps, Cllr Goodall expressed concern that this could theoretically mean permitting “the towing of redundant UK boats from Rosyth and Devonport down under for disposal”.

He said he fears that this could result in the loss of local expertise and jobs if it comes into practice.

He adds: “Surely as the operators of our own submarines, the UK Government should remain responsible for the storage of the resultant high-level waste and for their safe decommissioning in home ports?

“Not only will this preserve the expertise in these matters that has developed after many years of trial and error, but, as a ward member for the Rosyth Dockyard, it will also preserve the jobs in my local community.”

Back in 2022, the Press reported pledges from the UK Government that all laid-up submarines would be gone as part of plans to “de-nuclearise Rosyth” by 2035.

Councillors were given an update on the programme to remove radioactive waste and turn the seven boats that have been parked at the dockyard for decades into “tin cans and razor blades”.

The Ministry of Defence have previously faced heavy criticism for the delays and sky-high costs in dealing with the nuclear legacy, with 27 Royal Navy subs to be scrapped in total.

May 28, 2024 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Indigenous opposition to nuclear waste being transported through their territory

Concerns growing surrounding nuclear waste management

Anishinabek, The voice of the Anishinabek nation. May 22, 2024, By Rick Garrick

FORT WILLIAM — Fort William’s Elysia Lone Elk is raising concerns about the transportation of nuclear materials through Northern Ontario if the proposed nuclear waste site near Ignace in Treaty #3 territory gets the go-ahead.

The Trans-Canada Hwy. was closed for about 20 hours in 2001 after a head-on collision between two transport trucks, one of which was transporting two canisters of radioactive material — iridium — about 25 kilometres east of Dryden, 105 kilometres west of Ignace. The collision resulted in “widespread destruction” and the deaths of four people, two from each vehicle, according to a news report. Officials from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission eventually arrived on site, found there was no leakage, and removed the canisters to a safe location.

“Water is life, it’s our most sacred resource,” Lone Elk says. “We need that to survive, animals need that to survive, and I don’t think we should be drilling underground and playing with aquifers with a very toxic harmful material that has a half-life beyond my conception of time.”

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) has been following a process to select a site for Canada’s plan to safely manage used nuclear fuel long-term since 2010, and has since narrowed down the potential sites to two areas for Canada’s deep geological repository, the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation-Ignace area in northwestern Ontario, and the Saugeen Ojibway Nation-South Bruce area in southwestern Ontario. If the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation-Ignace area is selected as the site, nuclear materials would have to be transported across Northern Ontario to the site.

“If it’s so safe, then why are you even transporting it, just bury it where it is? We know how dangerous those highways can be,” Lone Elk says. “The fact that no one on the [potential transportation] corridor gets a say is a democratic problem, very frustrating.”

Lone Elk adds that the nuclear material would be transported across Northern Ontario for the operating life of the proposed deep geological repository. The NWMO states on their website that based on current projections of Canada’s inventory of used nuclear fuel, transportation is anticipated to take about 40 years to complete. The NWMO adds that they are exploring road and/or rail options for transporting used nuclear fuel to the deep geological repository.

“The (Fort William) Band Council has passed two resolutions, one focusing on the proximity principle and then the other one specifically outright stating we do not support nuclear fuel being transported through our traditional territory,” Lone Elk says. “We’re trusting their scientists, we’re trusting industry scientists, we’re trusting industry factors; so when does the First Nation get to participate with Indigenous knowledge?”

Fort William Chief Michele Solomon says Fort William passed two resolutions in the last four years opposing nuclear waste being brought into Fort William territory.

“I think that it’s fair to say we stand with other First Nations in Robinson Superior Treaty territory to say that there’s nothing that gives us comfort that there would be any safety with this being transported through our communities,” Solomon says. “We see the increase in accidents on the highways going through our homelands so we’re strongly opposed to it.”

Solomon adds that their community has not been consulted on this issue.

Based on how the community has responded to other possible threats to our homelands, the people have been strongly opposed to other things that have been proposed for our territory,” Solomon says. “If the government wants to proceed with this, then they need to consult with the rights holders of this territory. So if it needs to pass through Robinson Superior territory, you need to consult with all of those communities.”

Solomon says it is not enough for the Nuclear Waste Management Organization to say that it is safe.

“I think there should be independent research done and that has not happened as far as I know,” Solomon says, noting that unhealthy things have been brought into her community’s airspace and waterways before. “So we are strongly opposed.”

The Assembly of First Nations is holding four Regional Dialogue Sessions: A Dialogue on the Transportation and Storage of Used Nuclear Fuel at locations across the country, including on May 22 at the Delta Hotels by Marriott in Thunder Bay.

--

May 27, 2024 Posted by | Canada, indigenous issues, wastes | Leave a comment

Indigenous Senator warns new laws will turn Australia into “the world’s nuclear waste dump”

Giovanni Torre – May 13, 2024,  https://nit.com.au/13-05-2024/11377/lidia-thorpe-warns-new-laws-will-turn-australia-into-the-worlds-nuclear-waste-dump?mc_cid=a41a81cd8c&mc_eid=261607298d

Senator Lidia Thorpe has warned new legislation to regulate nuclear safety of activities relating to AUKUS submarines has left Australia open to becoming “the world’s nuclear waste dump”.

Under the AUKUS deal, the federal government agreed to manage nuclear waste from Australian submarines, but under legislation to be introduced in June, Australia could be set to take nuclear waste from UK and US submarines also, Senator Thorpe warned.

The Gunnai, Gunditjmara and Djab Wurrung independent senator for Victoria called on the government to urgently amend the bill to prohibit high-level nuclear waste from being stored in Australia, a call she said is backed by experts in the field and addresses one of the major concerns raised during the inquiry into the bill.

“This legislation should be setting off alarm bells, it could mean that Australia becomes the world’s nuclear waste dump,” Senator Thorpe said on Monday.

“The government claims it has no intention to take AUKUS nuclear waste beyond that of Australian submarines, so they should have no reason not to close this loophole.

“Unless they amend this bill, how can we know they’re being honest? They also need to stop future governments from deciding otherwise. We can’t risk our future generations with this.”

In March, Senator Thorpe questioned Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong about the long-term cost from storage of nuclear waste, and whether Australia would take on foreign nuclear waste under the AUKUS deal. The minister responded that this cost is not included in the current $368 billion estimated for AUKUS, and she could not confirm that foreign waste would not be stored in Australia.

Senator Thorpe noted that the US Environmental Protection Agency warns high-level nuclear waste remains dangerous for at least 10,000 years; managing the risk posed by the decommissioned fuel rods from the AUKUS submarines would require storage and management that is future-proof, something that has proven challenging even in countries with advanced nuclear industries.

She also pointed out on Monday that the bill has also been criticised for lack of transparency and accountability; and allows the Minister of Defense to bypass public consultation and override federal and state laws to determine sites for the construction and operation of nuclear submarines, and the disposal of submarine nuclear waste.

Senator Thorpe said there are serious concerns about a lack of community consultation and the risk of violating First Peoples right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent.

Historically, governments have tried to push the storage of radioactive waste on remote First Nations communities, with successful campaigns in Coober Pedy, Woomera, Muckaty, Yappala in the Flinders Ranges and Kimba fighting off these attempts.

“We’ve seen how far the major parties will go to ingratiate themselves with the US. Labor must amend this bill to prove they’re putting the interests of our country first,” Senator Thorpe said.

“And they need to change the powers that allow the Minister and the Department to choose any place they like for nuclear waste facilities with no oversight or community consultation.

“That’s complete overreach and will undermine First Peoples rights for Free, Prior and Informed Consent under the United Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”

The senator said “time and again” governments have attempted to turn remote communities into nuclear waste dumps, with the risks from nuclear waste always being put on First Peoples.

“I’m concerned that this time it will be no different,” she said.

“The Bill allows the government to contract out liability for nuclear safety compliance, includes no emergency preparedness or response mechanisms, no consideration of nuclear safety guidelines from the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency and leaves many other questions on nuclear safety unanswered.”

“This Bill fails to set out a nuclear safety framework for the AUKUS submarines and instead focuses on defence objectives, while sidestepping safety, transparency and accountability. It’s a negligent and reckless bill that should not pass the Senate.”

May 24, 2024 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, indigenous issues, wastes | Leave a comment

No nuke waste down under: NFLAs spokesperson seeks reassurance British nuclear subs will still be decommissioned at Rosyth

Secretaries of State, frankly this seems either a massive – and probably unintended – faux pax by Australian legislators, or an incredible gesture of largesse on the part of Britain’s AUKUS ally.

https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/no-nuke-waste-down-under-nflas-spokesperson-seeks-reassurance-british-nuclear-subs-will-still-be-decommissioned-at-rosyth/ 20 May 24

The UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities have written to senior government ministers seeking their assurance that redundant British nuclear submarines will not be sent to Australia for disposal.

NFLA Spokesperson on Nuclear Submarine Decommissioning Councillor Brian Goodall, who represents the Rosyth Ward in Scotland where decommissioning is currently taking place, has written to the Foreign and Defence Secretaries asking for their confirmation that they will not be sending waste or decommissioning work overseas should a new Australian law be passed unamended.

The United Kingdom and United States have signed the AUKUS pact with Australia to build and operate a new fleet of nuclear submarines; this includes the provision of new conventionally armed, but nuclear powered, vessels for the Australian Navy.

To support the pact, Australian legislators have proposed a new Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2024, which appears to provide under Clauses 7 and 12 of the Bill for the disposal of high level radioactive waste from British and American submarines on Australian soil, and also for the storage of such materials in Australia from ‘a submarine that is not complete (for example, because it is being constructed or disposed of)’.

In response, members of the Australian Senate’s Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Standing Committee has recently recommended that ‘the Government consider amending the Bill so that a distinction is made between Australia’s acceptance of low-level nuclear waste from AUKUS partners, but non-acceptance of high-level nuclear waste’.[i]

In his letter to Lord Cameron and Grant Shapps, Councillor Goodall expresses his concerned that this could theoretically mean ‘permitting towing redundant UK boats from Rosyth and Devonport down under for disposal’. Councillor Goodall fears that, were this to become practice and not just theory, local expertise and the jobs of his constituents could be lost.

Councillor Goodall ends by an appeal for the maintenance of the status quo as surely ‘the UK Government should remain responsible for the storage of the resultant high-level waste (HLW) and for the safe decommissioning of British nuclear submarines in home ports.’

nds…For more information please contact Richard Outram, NFLA Secretary, by email to richard.outram@manchester.gov.uk

The letter sent to Lord Cameron and Grant Shapps on 17 May reads:

The Lord David Cameron, Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs,

The Rt. Hon. Grant Shapps MP, Secretary of State for Defence

Dear Secretaries of State,

The future disposal of AUKUS submarine waste in Australia

As the Spokesperson on Nuclear Submarine Decommissioning for the UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities, I am writing to you to seek your assurance that the United Kingdom would not avail itself of any facility provided by the Australian Government to dispose of any of its own radioactive waste resulting from the operation of British nuclear submarines.

For some inexplicable reason, the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2024, which has recently been subject of a Senate Inquiry, appears to provide within Clauses 7 and 12 of the Bill for the disposal of waste from UK and US operated submarines, in addition to that from Australian navy vessels. The legislation specifically references the ‘managing, storing or disposing of radioactive waste from an AUKUS submarine’ in a bespoke facility, with an AUKUS submarine being described as ‘an Australian submarine or a UK/US submarine’. Furthermore, it provides for the storage of such arisings from ‘a submarine that is not complete (for example, because it is being constructed or disposed of)’, which might even theoretically be read as permitting towing redundant UK boats from Rosyth and Devonport down under for disposal!

Secretaries of State, frankly this seems either a massive – and probably unintended – faux pax by Australian legislators, or an incredible gesture of largesse on the part of Britain’s AUKUS ally.

Opponents of the Bill are now seeking amendments to ensure that the revised Bill does not provide for the storage of High-Level Waste from UK and US submarines, nor provide for the storage of allied vessels during a prolonged process of construction or decommissioning.

Surely as the operators of our own submarines, the UK Government should remain responsible for the storage of the resultant HLW and for their safe decommissioning in home ports. Not only will this preserve the expertise in these matters that has developed after many years of trial and error, but, as a Ward Member for the Rosyth Dockyard, it will also preserve the jobs in my local community.

I am writing to seek your reassurance that this shall remain the case.

Thank you kindly for giving this letter your consideration. I very much look forward to your reply. Please respond by email to the NFLA Secretary Richard Outram at richard.outram@manchester.gov.uk

Yours sincerely,

Councillor Brian Goodall, Rosyth Ward, Fife Council

[i] https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Foreign_Affairs_Defence_and_Trade/ANNPSBills23/Report Recommendation 3

May 23, 2024 Posted by | wastes | Leave a comment

  ALL reactor-produced plutonium is usable in nuclear weapons.

Gordon Edwards 19 May 4

Whenever plutonium is created in a nuclear reactor, it is always mostly plutonium-239. The higher isotopes – plutonium-240, plutonium-241, plutonium-242 – are always present in diminishing order of importance. 

A lighter “burnup” (a shorter residence time in the reactor) will reduce the opportunity for the heavier isotopes to be created (by repeated neutron captures), and so the relative percentage of plutonium-239 will be that much greater. 

The important thing to know is that ALL reactor-produced plutonium is usable in nuclear weapons, including the even-numbered isotopes.

See www.ccnr.org/plute_for_bombs_GE_2024.pdf 

Plutonium-238 is only a very small fraction of the plutonium in used reactor fuel. By itself, plutonium-238 is the only isotope of plutonium that probably cannot be used for bomb-making, simply because it generates too much spontaneous heat for the bomb to be stable (i.e. the concentniopnal explosive=s needed for detonation will likely melt.)

However the presence of very small amounts of plutonium-238, as in any plutonium extracted from used nuclear fuel, is not a serious problem..

May 20, 2024 Posted by | - plutonium, Reference | Leave a comment

Nuclear waste to be buried 650ft under the English countryside.

 Swathes of nuclear waste are set to be buried in the English countryside
after ministers agreed to dig a 650ft pit starting this decade. The
facility, which has yet to be allocated a site, will hold some of the 5m
tonnes of waste that was generated by nuclear power stations over the past
seven decades.

This will ease pressure on the 17 nuclear waste disposal
plants currently in operation around the country, which consist of giant
sheds and cooling ponds. The largest facility is the Sellafield site in
Cumbria.

Plans for the 650ft pit will see it house so-called
intermediate-level waste, possibly in a mine on a pre-existing nuclear site
to minimise planning objections. The facility will be separate from the
much deeper geological disposal site that will hold the UK’s most
dangerous waste, such as plutonium, which is unlikely to be built until
after 2050.

The proposals come amid fears Britain’s stockpile of nuclear
waste will grow in the coming decades with nowhere to put it. Concerns are
particularly acute as the Government is currently planning to build at
least three new nuclear power stations. This will put the country at odds
with the 1976 review of nuclear waste policy by the Royal Commission on
Environmental Pollution, which warned the UK was accumulating nuclear waste
so fast that it should stop building reactors until it had a solution.

Ministers want to brand nuclear energy as a “green” and
“sustainable” fuel. However, experts on the Government’s own advisory
body, the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, have said such terms
are misleading if there is no safe place to store radioactive waste.

A government spokesman said: “In addition to long-term plans to dispose of
the most hazardous radioactive waste in a geological disposal facility
hundreds of metres underground, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority will
explore a facility closer to the surface for less hazardous radioactive
waste. “While a geological disposal facility is not expected to be ready
until the 2050s, a shallower disposal facility – which is up to 200m
below ground – could be available within 10 years.”

 Telegraph 16th May 2024

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/05/16/nuclear-waste-stored-650ft-under-english-countryside/

May 19, 2024 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Japan starts 6th discharge of Fukushima nuclear-contaminated wastewater

CGTN, 17-May-2024

Japan on Friday started the sixth round of release of nuclear-contaminated wastewater from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the Pacific Ocean.

Despite opposition among local fishermen, residents as well as backlash from the international community, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), the plant’s operator, started releasing the radioactive wastewater in the morning, the second round in fiscal 2024.

The same as the previous rounds, about 7,800 tonnes of wastewater are being discharged from about a kilometer off the coast of Fukushima Prefecture via an underwater tunnel until June 4.

According to the TEPCO, the concentrations of all radioactive substances other than tritium in the water stored in the tank scheduled for release were below the national release standards, while the concentration of tritium that cannot be removed will be diluted with seawater.

The Chinese Embassy in Japan expressed firm opposition to this unilateral move of ocean discharge. While safety and reliability have yet to be ensured, Japan’s dumping of nuclear-contaminated water has repeatedly raised risks to neighboring countries and marine ecology, a spokesperson for the embassy said.

The spokesperson called on the Japanese side to attach great importance to the concerns at home and abroad and to fully cooperate in setting up an independent international monitoring arrangement that remains effective in the long haul and has the substantive participation of stakeholders.

………………………….. In fiscal 2024, the TEPCO plans to discharge a total of 54,600 tonnes of contaminated water in seven rounds, which contains approximately 14 trillion becquerels of tritium.  https://news.cgtn.com/news/2024-05-17/news-1tFIzr3u9Da/p.html

May 19, 2024 Posted by | Japan, oceans, wastes | Leave a comment

Welsh Nuclear Free Local Authorities welcome Traws abandonment from New Nuclear plans

https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/welsh-nflas-welcome-traws-abandonment-from-new-nuclear-plans/

The Welsh Nuclear Free Local Authorities Forum hope that the decision made by Great British Nuclear to temporarily postpone plans for new nuclear at Trawsfynydd at this time might become a permanent one.

In March, responding to the UK Government consultation on the siting of new nuclear plants after 2025, the Welsh NFLAs said that the Trawsfynydd site was wholly inappropriate for redevelopment as it lies within the beautiful Eryri National Park. Ministers have previously agreed that any Geological Disposal Facility will not be in the Lake District National Park, and the NFLAs have called for this principal to be applied as a blanket ban on new nuclear plants in National Parks, at World Heritage Sites and in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Great British Nuclear has just announced that the site ‘may not be able to deploy quite as quickly as some other sites’, with reports that site was too small and lacked sufficient cooling water to support the deployment of so-called Small Modular Reactors for the foreseeable future.

Trawsfynydd had an operating Magnox nuclear reactor on site until 1991. It was unique in being inland and cooled by the water of an artificial lake, but it is also a brutalist eyesore standing out stark and ugly against the idyllic backdrop of mountains and forest. The plant is now being dismantled by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, a British taxpayer funded body responsible for decommissioning redundant nuclear plant and for managing Britain’s radioactive waste inventory.

To the NFLAs, locating a new nuclear power plant in any National Park would be entirely incompatible with the Sandford Principal. From 1971 until 1974, Lord Sandford chaired a committee which examined the future management of National Parks in England and Wales:

‘National Park Authorities can do much to reconcile public enjoyment with the preservation of natural beauty by good planning and management and the main emphasis must continue to be on this approach wherever possible. But even so, there will be situations where the two purposes are irreconcilable… Where this happens, priority must be given to the conservation of natural beauty’.

We want to see the old Trawsfynydd plant decommissioned, and the site cleared and landscaped, as soon as practicable. n our view, any proposed new medical isotope facility would be better located at Bangor University, which has an established academic nuclear faculty and has much better transport links. The activities of the Welsh taxpayer funded Cwmni Egino, which was established to pursue new nuclear at the site, are entirely at variance with the stated ambition of the Welsh Government to source the nation’s domestically consumed electricity from truly ‘green’ sources. The body should be abolished, and its resources used to support the development of Welsh renewable energy projects.

May 19, 2024 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »