nuclear-news

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

Ontario’s proposed nuclear waste repository poses millennia-long ethical questions

Maxime Polleri, Assistant Professor, Université Laval, January 16, 2026 , https://theconversation.com/ontarios-proposed-nuclear-waste-repository-poses-millennia-long-ethical-questions-273181

The heat produced by the radioactive waste strikes you when you enter the storage site of Ontario Power Generation at the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station, near the shore of Lake Huron in Ontario.

Massive white containers encase spent nuclear fuel, protecting me from the deadly radiation that emanates from them. The number of containers is impressive, and my guide explained this waste is stored on an interim basis, as they wait for a more permanent solution.

I visited the site in August 2023 as part of my research into the social acceptability of nuclear waste disposal and governance. The situation in Ontario is not unique, as radioactive waste from nuclear power plants poses management problems worldwide. It’s too dangerous to dispose of spent nuclear fuel in traditional landfills, as its radioactive emissions remain lethal for thousands of years.

To get rid of this waste, organizations like the International Atomic Energy Agency believe that spent fuel could be buried in deep geological repositories. The Canadian government has plans for such a repository, and has delegated the task of building one to the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) that’s funded by Canadian nuclear energy producers.

In 2024, NWMO selected an area in northwestern Ontario near the Township of Ignace and the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation as a potential site for a deep geological repository. Now, a federal review has begun bringing the project closer to potential reality.

Such repositories raise complex ethical questions around public safety, particularly given the millennia-long timescales of nuclear waste: How to address intergenerational issues for citizens who did not produce this waste but will inherit it? How to manage the potential dangers of these facilities amid short-term political cycles and changing public expectations?

While NWMO describes the deep geological repository as the safest way to protect the population and the environment, its current management plan does not extend beyond 160 years, a relatively short time frame in comparison with the lifespan of nuclear waste. This gap creates long-term public safety challenges, particularly regarding intergenerational ethics. There are specific issues that should be considered during the federal review.

NWMO argues that the deep geological repository will bring a wide range of benefits to Canadians through job creation and local investment. Based on this narrative, risk is assessed through a cost-benefit calculus that evaluates benefits over potential costs.

Academics working in nuclear contexts have, however, criticized the imbalance of this calculus, as it prioritizes semi-immediate economic benefits, like job creation, over the long-term potential impacts to future generations.

In many official documents, a disproportionate emphasis on short-term economic benefits is present over the potential dangers of long-term burial. When risks are discussed, they’re framed in optimistic language and argue that nuclear waste burial is safe, low risk, technically sound and consistent with best practices accepted around the world.

This doesn’t take into account the fact that the feasibility of a deep geological repository has not been proven empirically. For the federal review, discussions surrounding risks should receive an equal amount of independent coverage as those pertaining to benefits.

Intergenerational responsibilities and risks

After 160 years, the deep geological repository will be decommissioned and NWMO will submit an Abandonment License application, meaning the site will cease being looked after.

Yet nuclear waste can remain dangerous for thousands of years. The long lifespan of nuclear waste complicates social, economic and legal responsibility. While the communities of Ignace and Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation have accepted the potential risks associated with a repository, future generations will not be able to decide what constitutes an acceptable risk.

Social scientists argue that an “acceptable” risk is not something universally shared, but a political process that evolves over time. The reasons communities cite to decide what risks are acceptable will change dramatically as they face new challenges. The same goes for the legal or financial responsibility surrounding the project over the centuries.

In the space of a few decades, northwestern Ontario has undergone significant municipal mergers that altered its governance. Present municipal boundaries might not be guarantees of accountability when millennia-old nuclear waste is buried underground. The very meaning of “responsibility” may also undergo significant changes.

NWMO is highly confident about the technical isolation of nuclear waste, while also stating that there’s a low risk for human intrusion. Scientists that I’ve spoken with supported this point, stating that a deep geological repository should not be located in an area where people might want to dig.

The area proposed for the Ontario repository was considered suitable because it does not contain significant raw materials, such as diamonds or oil. Still, there are many uncertainties regarding the types of resources people will seek in the future. It’s difficult to make plausible assumptions about what people might do centuries from now.

Communicating long-term hazards

When the repository is completed, NWMO anticipates a prolonged monitoring phase and decades of surveillance. But in the post-operation phase, there is no plan for communicating risks to generations of people centuries into the future. The long time frame of nuclear materials complicates the challenges of communicating hazards. To date, several attempts have surrounded the semiotics of nuclear risk; that is, the use of symbols and modes of communication to inform future generations.

For example, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plan in New Mexico tried to use various messages to communicate the risk of burying nuclear waste. However, the lifespan of nuclear waste vastly exceeds the typical lifespan of any known human languages.

Some scientists even proposed a “ray cat solution.” The project proposed genetically engineering cats that could change color near radiation sources, and creating a culture that taught people to move away from an area if their cat changed colour. Such projects may seem outlandish, but they demonstrate the difficulties of developing pragmatic long-term ways of communicating risk.

Current governing plans around nuclear waste disposal have limited time frames that don’t fully consider intergenerational public safety. As the Canadian federal review for a repository goes forward, we should seriously consider these shortcomings and their potential impacts on our society. It is crucial to foster thinking about the long-term issues posed by highly toxic waste and the way it is stored, be it nuclear or not.

January 17, 2026 Posted by | Canada, wastes | Leave a comment

This Nuclear Renaissance Has a Waste Management Problem

12 Jan, 26, https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2026/01/12/this-nuclear-renaissance-has-a-waste-management-problem/

Three sobering facts about nuclear waste in the United States.

Americans are getting re-excited about nuclear power. President Trump has signed four executive orders aiming to speed up nuclear reactor licensing and quadruple nuclear capacity by 2050. Big tech firms ( e.g. Google, Amazon, Microsoft,  Meta) have signed big contracts with nuclear energy producers to fuel their power-hungry data centers. The federal government has signed a deal with Westinghouse to build at least $80 billion of new reactors across the country. Bill Gates has proclaimed that the “future of energy is sub-atomic”. 

It’s easy to see the appeal of nuclear energy. Nuclear reactors generate reliable, 24/7 electricity while generating no greenhouse gas emissions or local air pollution. But these reactors also generate some of the most hazardous substances on earth. In the current excitement around an American nuclear renaissance, the formidable challenges around managing long-lived radioactive waste streams are often not mentioned or framed as a  solved problem. This problem is not solved. If we are going to usher in a nuclear renaissance in this country, I hope we can keep three sobering facts top-of-mind.

Fact 1: Nuclear fission generates waste that is radioactive for a very long time.

After 4-6 years of hard work in a commercial fission reactor, nuclear fuel can no longer generate energy efficiently and needs to be replaced. When this “spent” fuel comes out of the reactor it is highly radioactive and intensely hot, so it must be carefully transferred into deep pools where it spends a few years cooling off…

Once cooled, this spent fuel is still not something you want to spend time with because direct exposure is lethal. While most of the radioactivity decays after about 1000 years, some will persist for over a million years. U.S. efforts to site and build a permanent repository for nuclear waste have failed (more on this below). After spending time in the pool, spent fuel is stored on sites of operating or retired reactors in steel canisters or vaults. 

Across the country, more than 90,000 metric tons of radioactive fuel is sitting in pools or dry storage at over 100 sites in 39 states. These sites are licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and regulated by the EPA. They are designed to be safe! But experts agree that this is an unacceptable long-term waste management situation (see, for example, here, here, and here).

Fact 2: The U.S. has no permanent nuclear waste disposal plan

For more than half a century, the United States has tried—and failed—to find a forever-home for its nuclear waste. Early efforts in the 1960s and 1970s went nowhere. In 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act which laid out a comparative siting process that was designed to be technically rigorous and politically fair. But this process was slow, expensive, and politically exhausting. 

By 1987, Congress lost patience, scrapped its own framework, and tried to force the issue by designating Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the chosen one. Nevada’s resistance was relentless. After roughly $15 billion in spending on site development, the Yucca Mountain proposal was finally withdrawn in 2010. As I understand it, these siting efforts did not fail because the location was declared unsafe. They failed because nuclear waste storage siting was being forced on an unwilling community.

In the years since, Blue Ribbon panels, expert advisory groups, and national research councils have been convened. All have reached the same conclusion. The U.S. needs to break the impasse over a permanent solution for commercial spent nuclear fuel and this will require a fair, transparent, and consent-based process. 

You might be thinking that spent fuel reprocessing, which is also enjoying an American renaissance right now, could eliminate the need for a geological repository. It’s true that reprocessing breaks spent fuel down to be used again. But in that process, new types of radioactive wastes are created that need to be managed in deep repositories or specialized landfills. This creates a potentially more (versus less) challenging mess to clean up (reprocessing leaders like France are pursuing costly geological repositories for these wastes).   

Fact 3: We are actively undermining public trust in the nuclear waste management process 

Convincing a community to host thousands of tons of radioactive waste for thousands of years is not easy. But it’s not impossible. Efforts in Sweden, Finland, France, Switzerland, and Canada are starting to find some success.

All of these international success stories share one important feature: a sustained commitment to building public trust in both nuclear industry regulation and the nuclear waste storage siting process. Alas, here in the United States, we seem to be moving in the opposite direction. 

A series of recent developments make it hard to feel hakuna matata about our nuclear waste management protocols:

These developments may ultimately succeed in accelerating nuclear deployment across the United States. But they also undermine the public trust and independent governance that are essential inputs into the building of a long-term nuclear waste management strategy.

Weighing our nuclear options

Taking a step back, it is worth asking why nuclear energy is enjoying such a resurgence in this country right now. The growing availability of low-cost renewables and storage, together with an increasingly flexible demand-side, complicates the claim that nuclear power is some kind of moral climate necessity. There are cheaper ways to decarbonize the grid. 

The renewed push for nuclear energy is not really about climate necessity. It seems to be driven by anxiety about reliability in a strained power system, industrial policy aimed at rebuilding domestic manufacturing capacity, and the commercial interests of firms chasing revenue streams tied to data centers and federal support. This nuclear revival trades off today’s politically urgent reliability concerns for a long-term obligation to manage radioactive waste (along with some low-probability risk of catastrophic failure). If that’s the trade off we want to make, we should understand that a nuclear renaissance without a viable long-term waste management plan saddles future generations with the messy consequences of our policy choices.

January 17, 2026 Posted by | Reference, USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Is a deep geological repository (DGR) for IGNACE a good idea?

I would say that the most important issue – and one that is totally disregarded by NWMO – is the inordinate extra cost (of about $500 million) of shipping used fuel to Ignace rather than Teeswater or some more southerly location. The mass transfer of used fuel from locations such as Bruce, Pickering and Darlington to the township of Ignace will involve dozens of 50-ton trucks travelling up and down major roads, such as Highways 401, 400, 69 and 17, a total of 25,000 times between 2043 and 2068. This protracted activity adds up to a total highway travel time of over 200 years!

Frank Greening, 13 Jan 26

Questioning  the wisdom of NWMO’s plan for a used fuel DGR to be constructed near Ignace in Northern Ontario, in view of the issues presented below:

From the Project description document AMP-REP-05000-0211-R000

11. ESTIMATED MAXIMUM PRODUCTION CAPACITY OF THE PROJECT

An estimated 5.9 million bundles of used fuel will be processed in the UFPP over its operational lifetime of approximately 50 years (about 120,000 used fuel bundles per year). On average, per the current conceptual reference design, 10 used fuel containers (UFCs) are planned to be processed and placed in the repository each workday, or approximately 2,500 UFCs each year.

To achieve this throughput, the UFPP is likely to incorporate multiple processing lines. Based on annual shipping (receipt) assumptions, the maximum number of certified transportation packages received at the UFPP in any given year is estimated to be approximately 885, holding between 120 and 192 used fuel bundles in each certified transportation package. The UFPP is designed to receive and process up to five certified transportation packages each day.

I would say that the most important issue – and one that is totally disregarded by NWMO – is the inordinate extra cost (of about $500 million) of shipping used fuel to Ignace rather than Teeswater or some more southerly location. The mass transfer of used fuel from locations such as Bruce, Pickering and Darlington to the township of Ignace will involve dozens of 50-ton trucks travelling up and down major roads, such as Highways 401, 400, 69 and 17, a total of 25,000 times between 2043 and 2068. This protracted activity adds up to a total highway travel time of over 200 years!

Closely related to the issue of shipping costs, is the additional problem of the high probability of inclement weather along Highway 17 from November to March each year. It appears that NWMO’s approach to dealing with this issue is simply to limit used fuel shipments to Ignace to just 9 months per year. However, this is barely adequate, given the common occurrence of snow storms along Highway 17 from as early as October to as late as April each year. Indeed, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment states in reference to winter driving on Highway 17: “Expect snowfall amounts of 10 –15 cm; reduced visibility due to snow and blowing snow; icy and slippery surfaces, and quickly changing and deteriorating travel conditions”.

This clearly shows the severity of the winter weather for the township of Ignace, with heavy snowfall dominating the months from November to March. Interestingly, NWMO has stated – See NWMO Report APM-REP-00440-0209-R001, issued September 2021 – that moving used nuclear fuel by truck to Ignace would mean “two to three shipments a day for approximately nine months of the year”. It is not clear why NWMO stipulates shipments being made for only 9 months per year, but this is presumably to allow for three months of inclement weather.

However, as previously noted, meteorological data for Ignace indicate that heavy snow is possible for this region from November to March, which is five months, not three! In addition, one is left wondering what happens at the DGR site for the three months when there are no used fuel shipments. Indeed, this lack of shipments is inconsistent with NWMO’s assertion, previously noted in this email, that “10 used fuel containers (UFCs) are planned to be processed and placed in the repository each workday.  I would like someone to explain how this will happen over winter, when NWMO admits there will be no used fuel shipments for at least three months each year, (December, January and February?). What will workers at the used fuel packaging plant do when there are no UFC’s to process?

Highway 17 in Northern Ontario has earned a reputation for frequent accidents, particularly involving heavy trucks. In 2022, the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) reported over 9,100 collisions involving large trucks across the province, with 71 fatalities — many occurring on routes like Highway 17.  Addressing the issues plaguing Highway 17 requires more than incremental fixes—it demands a transformative overhaul. Experts and residents alike stress the need for substantial investments to bring this critical corridor up to modern standards. Proposals extend far beyond doubling lanes or adding passing areas, emphasizing winter-specific design improvements, enhanced lane visibility, and the permanent operation of weigh stations with robust enforcement to eliminate unsafe vehicles. Rest stops must be expanded and maintained year-round to provide safe havens for drivers, particularly during extreme weather. Furthermore, the integration of advanced monitoring systems, including traffic cameras and real-time condition updates, is essential for proactive safety management of this Highway. Only through a comprehensive and bold approach can Highway 17 meet the safety, accessibility, and efficiency needs of the communities and industries it serves. Without such improvements to Highway 17, NWMO’s plan to build a DGR near Ignace is both reckless and potentially very dangerous!

NWMO’s nonchalant approach to the selection of a site for a used fuel DGR is deeply concerning. Just because the residents of a small northern Ontario town are willing to host a DGR does NOT make it the best possible option for Canada. And let’s remember that, once the site selection is made, it’s not just for a while, but in perpetuity! 

January 17, 2026 Posted by | Canada, wastes | Leave a comment

Nuclear power’s hidden $1 trillion problem

Jan 10, 2026 Nuclear power is having a big comeback after decades of decline. But it comes with a hidden cost: the enormous amount of time and money needed to decommission a nuclear power plant. We visit the (probably) most expensive civil decommissioning project in Europe to see why nuclear power can leave behind such a difficult legacy.

January 15, 2026 Posted by | decommission reactor | Leave a comment

How are geological repository projects progressing?

COMMENT. This story is from the nuclear industry’s online publication “World Nuclear News”, so important to recognize that there is a bias throughout. And errors. For example, it erroneously describes the Nuclear Waste Management Organization as a government agency.

By Alex Hunt, World Nuclear News, in Vienna, Sunday, 28 December 2025

A growing number of countries are planning a permanent solution to the issue of radioactive waste by burying it deep underground. Schemes take many years to plan, and many more years to build, but progress is being made.

Setting the scene: Why deep geological repository projects matter

A deep geological repository comprises a network of highly-engineered underground vaults and tunnels built to permanently dispose of higher activity radioactive waste so that no harmful levels of radiation ever reach the surface environment. They need to be located deep enough, and in suitable geological conditions, to ensure they will be safely secured for thousands of centuries.

The disposal of used nuclear fuel and other high-level waste has long been a pressing issue in terms of the perceived sustainability of nuclear energy programmes. For many decades this material has been stored [?]safely in pools or special containers and facilities at surface, or near-surface, locations, often close by nuclear power plants. These are seen as interim storage measures pending a permanent solution.

Hildegarde Vandenhove, Director of the IAEA Division of Radiation Safety, Transport and Waste Safety…………..” developing these facilities is a long and a complex process. It requires rigorous studies and extensive safety demonstrations. These are all first-of-a-kind facilities, and their construction takes time.“

The process of selecting a site, and getting approval for it, takes decades, with Anna Clark, head of the Waste and Environmental Safety Section in the Division of Radiation Transport and Waste Safety at the IAEA, saying that “before operations can begin, there’s a lengthy pre-operational phase with conceptual design, the planning, the surveys, the site investigations, site selection, narrowing down the number of sites, doing detailed characterisation of your preferred site, it’s a long process before you even begin with the licensing of construction. And throughout that period, the safety case evolves and the role of the regulator also evolves, and the regulators have to adapt their expertise and knowledge as they go”.

Canada

Colin Moses, Vice-President, Regulatory Affairs, and Chief Communications Officer at the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, outlined the status of the country’s deep geological repository which, he noted, started being discussed in the 1970s. It is being taken forward by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, a government agency fully funded by the producers of waste with a mandate to determine and find and build and operate a long-term solution for disposal of used fuel in Canada.

Its concept is for a “geosphere which forms a natural barrier of rock to protect the waste from disruptive natural events, water flow and human intrusion”.

The current status is that Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation and the Township of Ignace were selected in November 2024 as the host communities for the proposed repository, following a consent-based siting process that had begun some 14 years earlier. Pre-licensing activities, including stakeholder engagement, pre-environmental assessment and technical reviews, have been taking place.

Construction of the facility will only begin once the deep geological repository has successfully completed the federal government’s multi-year regulatory process and the Indigenous-led Regulatory Assessment and Approval Process, a sovereign regulatory process that will be developed and implemented by Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation.

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization explored more than 20 different potential locations in Canada looking for local communities to raise their hand and express an interest in potentially hosting the repository, with the last decade spent refining that list down to the one preferred site. 

Moses said he was expecting the formal regulatory process to begin this year and “will play out over several years, looking to give an initial decision in 2030. That will allow them to advance construction in 2032, move into operation in 2042 and ultimately to operate that facility for many decades, expecting a current closure date of 2092”.

and ultimately to operate that facility for many decades, expecting a current closure date of 2092″.

“So this is a project that’s playing out over multiple decades and has spent multiple decades getting ready.”

Finland

Progress is furthest advanced with Finland’s Onkalo project. Petteri Tiippana, Director General of the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority of Finland (STUK) outlined the concept, which is a repository in crystalline rock with used fuel in copper canisters surrounded by a bentonite buffer at a depth of 400-430 metres.

For Finland, which is currently in the process of commissioning the deep geological repository, the process began in the 1980s with the then government setting a target for operation in the 2020s. Pre-licensing activities started almost immediately, Tiippana said, in terms of research and design and for the concept, with actual licensing steps beginning in the early 2000s with a site selection. A construction licence was issued in 2015.

Currently the encapsulation plant has been commissioned and tested the dummy fuel elements in five canisters and transported them to the underground facility. The next phase will be to “test the underground facility and the final disposal of those five copper cases”. He said that the reviewing of safety documentation is approaching its final stages and the aim is for a decision next year, with operations then starting.

See how Finland’s project will work:

France

France plans to construct the Centre Industriel de Stockage Géologique (Cigéo) repository – an underground system of disposal tunnels – in a natural layer of clay near Bure, to the east of Paris in the Meuse/Haute Marne area. The plan is to dispose of 10,000 cubic metres of high level waste and 75,000 cubic metres of intermediate-level waste.

Jean-Luc Lachaume, Commissioner of the French Authority for Nuclear Safety and Radiation Protection (ASNR), said that, as with other countries, there had been decades of work already on developing the repository, with parliamentary debates about it beginning in the 1980s, before a decision 20 years ago to go ahead with a deep geological repository.

The milestone of the construction licence application being submitted happened in 2023, since when it has been under review. A technical review was completed in June and ASNR issued a favourable opinion on the application earlier this month. 

This will be followed by the consultation phase and public inquiry in 2026 and a potential licence granting in 2027 or 2028, with a target first operation of the pilot phase in 2035.

Sweden

A site has been selected at Fosmark, 150 kilometres north of Stockholm. Surface works have been taking place and the application to start underground excavation was submitted in January 2025 and is currently being considered. The concept for Sweden is the repository to be at a depth of 500 metres, in crystalline rock, with copper canisters each surrounded by bentonite clay to keep groundwater away from the canister and to provide a barrier to any potential leakage of radioactive material.

As with all countries, there has been decades of preparation and discussion, with regulatory licensing reviews and court hearings from 2011 to 2018 prior to government approval being issued in 2022……………………………..

Switzerland

Switzerland is in the final stage of the site selection process, which began in 2008, with national and international participation. The plan is for a combined repository for high- low- and Intermediate-level waste, with a general licence application submitted and due to be considered by 2027 with a government decision targeted for 2029.

Marc Kenzelmann, Director General of the Swiss Federal Nuclear Safety Inspectorate, outlined the background to the site selection, noting that Switzerland was a country about 7% the size of Texas, with two thirds of its area covered in mountains, so unusable for a high-level waste repository because the Alps could rise by a kilometre over the next million years, which is “the time frame that we have set for a safe, deep geological repository. So the Alps have an active geology, but what we need is a boring geology”.

This has meant that the location search was focused on the area near to the German border, so “we have involved Germany from the very start of the selection process”. He said that one issue was making sure to take the time and effort to build up stakeholder trust. In their case there have also been some unique differences of public opinion, with “Swiss people generally less concerned than German people” about the issue.

In November 2024 Switzerland’s national radioactive waste disposal cooperative Nagra applied to the Swiss Federal Office of Energy for a general permit for the construction of the planned deep geological repository for radioactive waste at Nördlich Lägern in northern Switzerland, and a used nuclear fuel encapsulation plant at the existing Zwilag interim storage facility in Würenlingen in the can­ton of Aar­gau.

According to current planning, the Federal Council will decide on the application in 2029 and Parliament in 2030. A national referendum is expected to take place in 2031.

Once the general authorisation for the repository comes into force, geological studies will be carried out underground in the area of ​​implantation (through the creation of an underground laboratory), with the aim of acquiring more in-depth knowledge with a view to the construction of the repository. The application for a building permit, then later the application for an operating permit, can then be submitted. According to current planning, the repository could come into operation and the first radioactive waste could be stored there from 2050.

The USA

Yucca Mountain has since 1987 been named in the US Nuclear Waste Policy Act as the sole initial repository for disposal of the country’s used nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive wastes. The DOE submitted a construction licence application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2008, but the Obama Administration subsequently decided to abort the project and there have been various twists and turns since then, with the upshot that it has not been built.

Mike King, Executive Director for Operations at the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said the current status of its high-level waste disposal programme is that NRC staff had reviewed the US Department of Energy’s application for a repository at Yucca Mountain and staff completed its Safety Evaluation Report more than a decade ago and concluded it met safety standards “however there were two remaining environmental and programmatic pull points that prevented the final authorisation” and since 2016 funding has been halted and there are no activities taking place on it other than record-keeping, and the licensing process is currently suspended.

The general thrust of the discussion was that there needs to be a clear delineation of responsibilities for the project, with long-term planning and clear public consultation and decision-making processes to ensure there is community trust in the decision making process……………………………………………https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/how-are-geological-repository-projects-progressing

January 5, 2026 Posted by | Reference, wastes | Leave a comment

Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety (CCNS) Nuclear Literacy Program to Educate Nuevomexicano Communities on the LANL Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Plutonium Pit Production

For over eighty years, the People of New Mexico have borne the burden of the 1943 establishment of Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). Through the Congressional continuing resolution process, LANL may receive an additional $1 billion dollars to support expansion of the number of plutonium triggers, or plutonium pits, fabricated for nuclear weapons. The people of northern New Mexico are unaware of the effects that this potentially may have on nearby communities. The effects of eight decades of nuclear weapons development has had a cumulative impact on New Mexico, especially in Rio Arriba County, which borders Los Alamos County to the north and west.

During the Bush II and Obama Administrations, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposed three new weapons systems: the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP), the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW), and the Interoperable Warhead (IW). Grassroots organizations networked, educated each other, spoke at public meetings, wrote informed public comments, and worked with technical experts, elected officials and the media to understand how increased weapons development would impact frontline communities, which are mostly comprised of Indigenous and Hispanic people. With leadership from New Mexico and colleagues and NGOs throughout the world and through active organizing and public engagement in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, those proposed weapons systems were defeated and eventually canceled. 

January 3, 2026 Posted by | - plutonium | Leave a comment

The cost of eternity

While the hype for nuclear energy is taking over Europe, radioactive waste remains a challenge: it takes billions to store it safely.

Guillaume Amouret | 17/12/2025,
https://europeancorrespondent.com/en/r/the-cost-of-eternity

The world’s first deposit of nuclear waste lies 430 meters underground, beneath a dense pine forest on the peninsula of Olkiluoto, on the shores of western Finland. It should store up to 6,500 tonnes of waste.

Finland opted for a deep geological deposit to permanently and securely dispose of radioactive spent nuclear fuel. Carved in the granite bedrock, deep below the surface, the storage is conceived to protect the surface from radioactivity for at least 100,000 years.

After a one-year delay due to technical difficulties, the Onkalo (“cave” in Finnish) is now awaiting final approval from the Finnish Nuclear Security Agency, STUK.

Contacted by The European Correspondent, the operator of the Onkalo, Posiva, reaffirmed its goal to start operations in 2026.

Safe until the world’s end?

For now, spent fuel elements are usually stored in temporary above-ground facilities next to the reactors or collected in a central storage facility such as La Hague in France.

However, the disposal of radioactive materials has not always been well-thought-out. After the war and until the 1990s, 200,000 barrels of nuclear waste were dumped in the deep sea without consideration for the environmental consequences by the Nuclear Energy Agency.

Today, the Onkalo is pioneering the ”permanent” underground disposal method. Posiva adopted the Swedish KBS-3 system: spent fuel rods are placed in an 8-meter-long copper canister, which is then embedded in bentonite clay and inserted in holes drilled directly into the crystalline rock deep underground.

The remaining free tunnels are eventually filled with bentonite too. All combined, copper bentonite and granite constitute a three-stage protection against radiation.

Billions for projects that locals don’t like

The construction of the Onkalo site has cost around €1 billion so far, Posiva told TEC. The operations and the site’s closing, in a hundred years from now, are further evaluated at an additional €4 billion, bringing the total cost to €5.5 billion. For context, decommissioning a wind turbine in Finland costs between €10,000 and €85,000.

In Forsmark, on the Swedish side of the Gulf of Bothnia, SKB started the construction of a similar deposit in January this year.

The Swedish project should have twice the storage capacity of the Onkalo. And so does its budget. In a recent calculation update, SKB mentioned a global cost of €11 billion from cradle to final closing.

The Swedish and Finnish repositories are not the only ongoing projects in Europe – France and Germany have the most (running or shut down) nuclear reactors in Europe, 71 and 33 respectively. Things get a bit trickier there, however, when it comes to waste storage.

Exit the granite in France, the spent nuclear fuel will be buried in clay rock in Bure, a small village situated in a rural area of eastern France. Originally estimated at €25 billion, the global budget of the French deposit has been recently revised to between €26 and 37 billion.

Asked by TEC, the operator, Andra, justifies the increase through “the extension of schedule, and extra costs due to additional workforce in management and the security of the site”.

This summer, Andra started the construction of a dedicated building for the police squad in charge of monitoring and cracking down on local opposition to the project since 2019.

So far, the trophy for the most chaotic process goes to Germany. In 1973, the first site was selected to build a final repository: Gorleben’s salt mine in Northern Germany. But after decades of fierce opposition from environmental activists against the infrastructure, the site was declared unsuitable five years ago.

In fact, the search for an adequate location restarted from zero at the beginning of the 2010s. And while the search process is still ongoing for a few more years, the German authority for nuclear security, BASE, hopes to open a new site by 2050.

Who pays?

Following the principle ”polluter pays”, nuclear energy companies should fully fund the permanent storage construction. In addition, they are subject to two different taxes to fund the construction of the deposit site: a research and a design tax.

Finland and Sweden work with a relatively similar finance concept. In both Scandinavian countries, the nuclear industry contributes to a dedicated nuclear waste fund every year.

In both cases, the annual fee is determined by the costs of the remaining work for the final disposal. In Finland, this accounts for about 9% of the production cost of nuclear electricity, and around 6% in Sweden.

Germany tried to create a unique public foundation to finance nuclear waste management: KENFO. In 2017, the energy companies E.ON, Vattenfall, EnBW and RWE transferred together €24 billion to the fund.

KENFO then should have developed the fund further by investing parts of it in financial products, but registered a loss of €3 billion in 2023, due to the loss in value of governmental bonds and real estate investment trusts (REIT).

December 27, 2025 Posted by | EUROPE, wastes | Leave a comment

UK to restart nuclear submarine defuelling in 2026

By Lisa West, -UK Defence Journal 23rd Dec 2025 https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-to-restart-nuclear-submarine-defuelling-in-2026/

The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that defuelling of the UK’s decommissioned nuclear-powered submarines is set to restart in 2026, as preparations continue at specialist dock facilities in Devonport.

In a written parliamentary answer, defence minister Luke Pollard said the twelve remaining first-generation submarines powered by pressurised water reactors would be handled through a tightly regulated process overseen by the Office for Nuclear Regulation.

He said the submarines would dock in “a specialised, licensed dock in Devonport”, where “the used fuel will be removed, loaded into a qualified transport container and transported to Sellafield prior to long-term storage in the Geological Disposal Facility.”

Pollard confirmed that dismantling of each vessel would only take place once defuelling is complete, adding that “work is underway to prepare the dock facilities and associated resources in line with plans to recommence defueling in 2026.”

The update also set out progress on the UK’s first full submarine dismantling programme. HMS Swiftsure, the demonstrator vessel for the Submarine Dismantling Project, began dismantling at Rosyth in 2023.

According to Pollard, the project “will refine the disposal process and is on track to be dismantled by the end of 2026, achieving the commitment given to the Public Accounts Committee in 2019.”

He said lessons from Swiftsure and the Devonport defuelling programme would be used to firm up timelines for the remaining fleet, stating that “lessons learned from these defuel and dismantling projects will provide more certainty around the schedule for defueling and dismantling the remaining 22 decommissioned submarines.”

The UK currently has 27 decommissioned nuclear submarines awaiting defuelling or dismantling, a long-running issue highlighted repeatedly by the National Audit Office and parliamentary committees concerned about safety, cost and delay.

December 27, 2025 Posted by | UK, wastes | Leave a comment

73 Organizations Send Joint Letter Calling on the Federal Government to Improve Nuclear Waste Oversight

https://wawa-news.com/index.php/2025/12/17/73-organizations-send-joint-letter-calling-on-the-federal-government-to-improve-nuclear-waste-oversight/

73 organizations representing a broad segment of Canadian society have sent a joint letter to the federal government urging more oversight of the nuclear industry and of nuclear waste projects.

In the letter, the groups urged the Prime Minister and the Ministers of Environment and Climate Change and of Energy and Natural Resources to exercise oversight of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s “Adaptive Phased Management Project” to transport, process, bury and eventually abandon all of Canada’s nuclear fuel waste at the NWMO’s selected site in the heart of Treaty 3 Territory in northwestern Ontario and its upcoming impact assessment process.

The groups expressed an overarching concern about the lack of federal oversight of this project since its inception in 2002.

More recently, the NWMO has made it known that they are seeking to have transportation of the radioactive wastes excluded from the project’s impact assessment process. But for 20 years the NWMO has been describing transportation as part of their project, and the Impact Assessment Act requires activities that are integral to – or, in the language of the Act “incidental” to – the project be included in the assessment.

The joint letter requests that the federal government provide immediate oversight and direction in four areas:

73 organizations representing a broad segment of Canadian society have sent a joint letter to the federal government urging more oversight of the nuclear industry and of nuclear waste projects.

In the letter, the groups urged the Prime Minister and the Ministers of Environment and Climate Change and of Energy and Natural Resources to exercise oversight of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s “Adaptive Phased Management Project” to transport, process, bury and eventually abandon all of Canada’s nuclear fuel waste at the NWMO’s selected site in the heart of Treaty 3 Territory in northwestern Ontario and its upcoming impact assessment process.

The groups expressed an overarching concern about the lack of federal oversight of this project since its inception in 2002.

More recently, the NWMO has made it known that they are seeking to have transportation of the radioactive wastes excluded from the project’s impact assessment process. But for 20 years the NWMO has been describing transportation as part of their project, and the Impact Assessment Act requires activities that are integral to – or, in the language of the Act “incidental” to – the project be included in the assessment.

The joint letter requests that the federal government provide immediate oversight and direction in four areas:

December 22, 2025 Posted by | Canada, wastes | Leave a comment

What to do with Britain’s radioactive waste?

    by Ian Fairlea,  beyondnuclearinternational .

“………………………………………………………………………………… Radioactive nuclear waste is produced by all nuclear activities. For example, uranium mining produces a great deal of waste in the form of ore spoil like all mining. Since uranium is radioactive, so are its ore wastes. So also are all the processes of refining the ore, enriching the uranium, turning it into fuel for reactors, transportation, burning it in nuclear power stations, processing the used fuel, and its handling and storage. They all create more nuclear waste.

The reason is that everything that comes into contact with radioactive materials, including the containers in which they are stored or moved and even the buildings in which they are handled, become contaminated with radioactivity or are activated by radiation

All radioactive waste is dangerous to human life as exposure to it can cause leukaemia and other cancers. It is usually categorised as low, intermediate or high-level waste. As the radioactivity level increases, so does the danger. Extremely high levels of radioactivity can kill anyone coming into contact with it – or just getting too close to it – within a matter of days or weeks.

Radioactive materials slowly lose their radioactivity and so can become in theory safe to handle but in most cases this is a very slow process. Plutonium-239, for instance, has a half-life of over 24,000 years which means it will remain lethal for over 240,000 years. Other radio-isotopes remain radioactive for millions or even billions of years.

The safe, long-term storage of nuclear waste is a problem that is reaching crisis point for both the civil nuclear industry and for the military.

During the Cold War years of the 1950s and 1960s, the development of the British atomic bomb was seen as a matter of urgency. Dealing with the mess caused by the production, operating and even testing of nuclear weapons was something to be worried about later, if at all.

For example, the Ministry of Defence does not really have a proper solution for dealing with the highly radioactive hulls of decommissioned nuclear submarines, apart from storing them for many decades. As a result, 19 nuclear-powered retired submarines are still waiting to be dismantled, with more expected each year. Yet Britain goes on building these submarines.

This callous disregard for the future has spilled over to the nuclear power industry. For example, at Dounreay, in the north of Scotland, nuclear waste and scrap from the experimental reactor and reprocessing plants were simply tipped down a disused shaft for over 20 years. No proper records of what was dumped were kept and eventually, in 1977, an explosion showered the area with radioactive debris. In April 1998, it was finally announced that excavation and safe removal of the debris had cost £355 million.

The problems of long term, secure storage of nuclear waste are unsolved and growing more acute year by year. Earlier attempts by the nuclear industry to get rid of it by dumping it in the sea were stopped by environmental direct action, trades union protests and now by law.

All details concerning military nuclear waste are regarded as official secrets. However, large and growing quantities of radioactive waste exist at the Rosyth and Devonport dockyards and in particular at the Aldermaston and Burghfield Atomic Weapons Establishments.

One feature of Aldermaston and Sellafield in particular is that they are old sites, and have grown up in an unplanned, haphazard way. New buildings are fitted in between old, sometimes abandoned, buildings. Some areas and buildings are sealed off and polluted by radioactivity. Local streams, and in the case of Sellafield the sea shore, are polluted. The demolition of old radioactive buildings is a delicate, slow and dangerous process. In the circumstances it is hardly surprising that the amount of nuclear waste can only be estimated.

Civil intermediate level solid waste is mainly stored at Sellafield awaiting a decision on a national storage facility.

Military intermediate level solid waste is stored where it is created: dockyards, AWE plants etc. Both civil and military high level solid waste is generally moved to Sellafield for temporary storage.

The major problems are with the long-term storage of intermediate and in particular high-level wastes. Since these are very dangerous and very long-lived, any storage facility has to be very secure (i.e. well-guarded) and safer over a longer period – some tens of thousands of years – than anything yet designed and built by humanity.

Because of this very long time scale, it can never be sealed up and forgotten. Containers corrode with time. There are earth movements. Water seeps through rocks. The waste will have to be stored in such a form that it cannot be stolen and misused and in such a way that it can be inspected and if necessary retrieved and moved.

Plans to dig a trial deep storage facility under the Sellafield site were thrown out in 1997. Geological evidence suggested that the local rock is too fissured and liable to be affected by water seepage.

This threw all the nuclear industry’s plans into confusion. Instead of having a storage site ready by 2010, the date has been put back more or less indefinitely. No alternative site has even been identified.

Apart from the technical, geological problems, few communities seek a huge, long-term nuclear waste storage site in their neighbourhood. Indeed the original choice of Sellafield was as much political as technical. With most local jobs depending on nuclear industry already, there would have been less local opposition than elsewhere.

Nuclear waste is a problem that the nuclear industry has failed to consider seriously for over sixty years but one that can no longer be put off for future generations to cope with.

The effects of any nuclear accidents, such as those at Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011, are also very long-lasting and will affect future generations. The problems of nuclear waste are nowhere near solution. The history of the nuclear industry does not inspire confidence………………………………………………………. https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2025/12/14/does-britain-really-need-nuclear-power/

December 15, 2025 Posted by | Reference, UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Further delay in Finnish repository licence review

WNN, 5 December 2025
Finland’s Ministry of Employment and the Economy has granted the country’s nuclear regulator a third extension to the deadline to complete its assessment of Posiva Oy’s operating licence application for the world’s first used nuclear fuel repository. The regulator’s statement is now expected by mid-2026.

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 last year, STUK requested the deadline for its opinion be extended until the end of 2024. In December, the ministry extended the deadline for the regulator’s opinion to 31 December 2025.

The ministry has now extended the deadline until the end of June 2026, “if it is possible to do so by then”. According to STUK, the new timetable is possible, but tight, for both the authority and the licence applicant.

Although STUK’s assessment of the application is in the final stages, the statement and safety assessment cannot be completed until it has assessed and approved all of Posiva’s operating licence application materials……………

At the repository, used fuel will be placed in the bedrock, at a depth of about 430 metres. The disposal system consists of a tightly sealed iron-copper canister, a bentonite buffer enclosing the canister, a tunnel backfilling material made of swellable clay, the seal structures of the tunnels and premises, and the enclosing rock

…………… The operation will last for about 100 years before the repository is closed.

….STUK said. “In particular, the demonstration of the performance of the clay material, which acts as one of the barriers to the spread of radioactive substances, is still under way. Posiva replaced the clay material in the original plans with another, and the effects of the new material on the long-term safety of the final disposal still need to be assessed.” https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/further-delay-in-finnish-repository-licence-review#:~:text=Finland’s%20Ministry%20of%20Employment%20and,now%20expected%20by%20mid%2D2026

December 11, 2025 Posted by | Finland, wastes | Leave a comment

Towards a transparent and responsible management of radioactive waste

Ottawa, December 4, 2025, www.ccnr.org/release_radwaste_transport_2025.pdf 

Bloc Québécois spokesperson for the Environment and Climate Change, Patrick Bonin, held a press conference on December 2 on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, alongside Lance Haymond, Chief of the Kebaowek First Nation, Lisa Robinson, Chief of the Wolf Lake First Nation, and representatives of several environmental and anti-radioactive-pollution groups to co-sign a letter along with more than 80 environmental associations, elected officials, trade unions, and First Nations representatives in Ontario, Quebec and the Rest of Canada, calling for a moratorium on the transport of radioactive waste over public roads and bridges to the Chalk River site located beside the Ottawa River.  [See the letter in English and French at www.ccnr.org/letter_e_f_2025.pdf ]

The signatories are calling on the federal government to ban, among other things, all imports of radioactive waste from other countries, including disused medical sources, expired tritium light sources, and irradiated nuclear fuel.

They are also calling on the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to conduct a strategic assessment of the transport of high-level and intermediate-level radioactive waste on public roads.

Quotes:

Ginette Charbonneau, spokesperson for the Coalition Against Radioactive Pollution, deplores the fact that “it is irresponsible to transport all radioactive waste under federal jurisdiction to Chalk River. It is doubly dangerous to transport the waste twice: once for temporary storage at Chalk River and a second time to its final destination.”

Gordon Edwards, Ph.D., president of the Nuclear Watchdog Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, states that “The Age of Nuclear Waste is just beginning. It’s time to stop and think. First, we must stop moving the waste. This only increases the costs and the risks without solving the problem. Second, we must think of the need for three things – justfiication, notification, and consultation – before moving any of this dangerous human-made cancer-causing material over public roads and bridges.”

Jean-Pierre Finet of the Regroupement des organismes environnementaux en énergie (Alliance of Environmental Organizations on Energy) states, “We wholeheartedly support the call for a moratorium on the transport and importation of waste and the request for a strategic environmental assessment. We believe that Chalk River must cease to be our government’s nuclear waste dump.”“

“In 2017, Ottawa residents were denied a regional environmental impact assessment of radioactive wastes accumulating alongside the Ottawa River. Given all the proposed waste transfers underway and yet to be implemented, a strategic assessment is more urgent than ever,” explains Dr. Ole Hendrickson of the Ottawa River Institute.

“The government is willing to accept unacceptable risks, to silence affected nations, and to operate without any transparency or accountability,” says Lance Haymond, Chief of the Kebaowek First Nation. “We have learned long ago: Silence is Consent. We will not be silent.”

Lisa Robinson, Chief of the Wolf Lake First Nation, Canada, says, “We are all calling on Canada to do better with the nuclear situation in storage and transportation, and we call on all Canadian to insist on complete accountability for the tens of billions of dollars of public money that is being spent by those hired to manage these indestructible radioactive wastes.”

Contacts :

English

Gordon Edwards,  Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility,  Montreal

– ccnr@web.ca  514-839-7214

Ole Hendrickson,  Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area,  Ottawa

– oleqhendrickson@gmail.com 613-735-4876

Brennain Lloyd,  Northwatch, We the Nuclear Free North,  North Bay, Ontario

– brennain@onlink.net  705-493-9650 

French/English

Ginette Charbonneau  Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive  Oka (Québec)

– ginettech@hotmail.ca  ‭514=246-6439‬

Jean-Pierre Finet,  Regroupement des organismes environnementaux en énergie,  Montréal

– pierre.finet@gmail.com ‭514-515-1957‬

Eva Schacherl,  Council of Canadians –  Ottawa

– evaschacherl@gmail.com  613-316-9450

Article: Transferts de déchets radioactifs à Chalk River | Le Bloc québécois reçoit de

nombreux appuis et ravive son appel à un moratoire | La Presse

Watch the press conference : Le Bloc demande un moratoire sur le transport de matières nucléaires | À la une | CPAC.ca

Link to the letter:letter_e_f_2025.pdf

Signatories of the letter…………………………………………………………………….

December 6, 2025 Posted by | Canada, wastes | Leave a comment

Fifth Belgian reactor is permanently shut down

World Nuclear News, 1 December 2025

Unit 2 of the Doel nuclear power plant in Belgium’s Flanders region has been taken offline for the final time after 50 years of operation and disconnected from the grid. Its closure is in line with Belgium’s nuclear phase-out policy, under which four other reactors have already been shut down.

Belgium’s Federal Agency for Nuclear Control (FANC) said the operation to shut down the 445 MWe (net) pressurised water reactor (PWR) was carried out under its supervision.

Doel 2 has now entered the decommissioning phase in preparation for its actual dismantling. Fuel will be unloaded from the reactor and cooled in the storage pool, so it can later be transported to temporary storage.

“As with the other shutdowns, the process began with the submission of a ‘notice of cessation of activities’ to the FANC,” the regulator said. “This document describes in great detail the activities that will be carried out after the shutdown to prepare for decommissioning.”

Belgium’s federal law of 31 January 2003 required the phase-out of all seven nuclear power reactors in the country. Under that policy, Doel 1 and 2 were originally set to be taken out of service on their 40th anniversaries, in 2015. However, the law was amended in 2013 and 2015 to provide for Doel 1  and 2 to remain operational for an additional 10 years. Doel 1 was retired in February this year. Duel 3 was closed in September 2022 and Tihange 2 at the end of January 2023. Tihange 1 was disconnected from the grid on 30 September this year……………………………………………….https://world-nuclear-news.org/articles/fifth-belgian-reactor-permanently-shut-down?cid=15961&utm_source=omka&utm_medium=WNN_Daily:_1_December_2025&utm_id=493&utm_map=24ecfe77-e3db-473a-be05-7c037a58ceb4

December 4, 2025 Posted by | decommission reactor, EUROPE | Leave a comment

Ministry Of Defence looking at ‘various sites’ for sub dismantling project

COMMENT. Put more simply. the UK government doesn’t really know what to do with the toxic wastes from nuclear submarines.

Governments are obsessed with “defence” against each other. Meanwhile the public thinks ‘jobs, jobs, jobs” even if those jobs are toxic, and part of a useless industry.

By George Allison, November 28, 2025, https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/mod-looking-at-various-sites-for-sub-dismantling-project/


A written answer in Parliament has confirmed that the Ministry of Defence is actively considering multiple locations for the UK’s permanent submarine dismantling and disposal capability.

Responding to Graeme Downie MP, defence minister Luke Pollard said the demonstrator vessel Swiftsure continues to be dismantled at Rosyth and remains on track to complete in 2026. He noted that “there are six further legacy submarines in Rosyth awaiting to enter the dismantling process.”

Those boats, alongside the 15 stored at Devonport, form the initial batch being processed under the Submarine Dismantling Project.

Pollard confirmed that the enduring solution will be delivered through a separate effort, the Submarine Disposal Capability Project, which is still in its concept phase. He stated that the department is “assessing options for the capability and its location with various sites under consideration within the UK,” adding that Parliament will be informed once a decision is ready.

This aligns with the practical pressures on the Defence Nuclear Enterprise. Rosyth can process only a small number of hulls at a time, while Devonport’s workload is dominated by defuelling, refit work and major safety driven upgrades. Both sites have finite regulatory and environmental headroom.

The broader SDP context helps explain the direction of travel as since 2013 the programme has been tasked with dealing with 27 retired submarines, removing radioactive and conventional waste safely and refining methods as it progresses. Swiftsure’s dismantling has already informed improved procedures, and the MoD reports that later boats will see faster and cheaper waste removal.

The Swiftsure project has proven the process, but the long term question remains open: where should the UK base a facility that will handle future decommissioned submarines on a rolling, multi decade basis. Pollard’s answer confirms that this decision is now in play.

November 30, 2025 Posted by | decommission reactor, UK | Leave a comment

The Mind-Bending Challenge of Warning Future Humans about Nuclear Waste

Designing nuclear-waste repositories is part engineering, part anthropology—and part mythmaking

Scientific American, By Vincent Ialenti edited by Seth Fletcher, 17 Nov 25

“……………………………………………………………………………………………………. In 2024 NWMO announced that Canada’s deep geological repository for spent nuclear fuel would be built in the granite formations of northwestern Ontario, near the Township of Ignace and the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation. The decision capped off a 14-year siting effort that solicited volunteer host communities and guaranteed them the right to withdraw at any stage of the process. NWMO is now preparing for a comprehensive regulatory review, which will include a licensing process conducted by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. This means the development of impact assessments that will be specific to the Ignace site. NWMO has also pledged an Indigenous-led regulatory process alongside federal oversight, with the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation conducting its own assessments to ensure the project reflects Anishinaabe principles of ecological stewardship. If approvals proceed, construction could begin in the 2030s, and the repository could go into operation in the 2040s.

A deep-time repository, like a deep-space probe, must endure without maintenance or intervention, independently carrying human intent into the far future.

A deep geological repository can be seen as a reverse ark: a vessel designed not to carry valuables forward in time but to seal dangerous legacies away from historical memory. Or it can be understood as a reverse mine: an effort returning hazardous remnants to the Earth rather than extracting resources from it. Either way it is more than just a feat of engineering. Repository projects weave together scientific reasoning, intergenerational ethics and community preferences in decisions that are meant to endure longer than empires. As messages to future versions of ourselves, they compel their designers to ask: What symbols, stories or institutions might bridge epochs? And what does it mean that we are trying to protect future humans who may exist only in our imaginations?

……………………………..An enduring question for all repository programs is whether—and, if so, how—to mark their sites and archive knowledge about them. There is no guarantee that the languages we speak today will remain intelligible even a few thousand years from now

…………………………………………. As NWMO prepares for construction in Ignace in the 2030s, the question of long-term communication must increasingly shift from theory to practice. Canada has participated in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Nuclear Energy Agency’s Preservation of Records, Knowledge and Memory initiative, which has explored strategies ranging from warning markers to staged transfers of responsibility across generations. In a 2017 safety report, NWMO wisely conceded a limit: “repository records and markers (and passive societal memory) are assumed sufficient to ensure that inadvertent intrusion would not occur for at least 300 … years.” Beyond that horizon, the premise changes. No monument, land-use restriction, monitoring system or archive can be trusted to endure indefinitely………………………………………………………………………… https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-waste-arks-are-a-bold-experiment-in-protecting-future-generations/

November 18, 2025 Posted by | wastes | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »