Small nuclear reactors produce more radioactive trash than large ones do- American Academy of Sciences
Despite being hailed as the future of electricity generation in the UK,
small nuclear reactors may actually produce more waste than their larger
counterparts, as our Gossage Gossip columnist explains.
A planned new generation of small nuclear reactors will create more waste than
conventional reactors, according to an authoritative new study.
The projects, called small modular reactors (SMR), are designed to be simpler
and safer than conventional plants in the case of an accident. They are
also expected to be built in factories and shipped to locations across the
world, as opposed to today’s massive reactors, which are built on-site
and typically run billions of pounds over budget. SMR backers maintain they
are a safe way to boost generation of virtually emissions-free electricity.
But the reactors would create far more radioactive waste per unit of
electricity they generate than conventional reactors by a factor of up to
30, according to a study published in the Proceedings of the American
National Academy of Sciences.
Some of these smaller reactors, with molten
salt and sodium-cooled designs, are expected to create waste that needs to
go through additional conditioning to make it safe to store in a
repository.
Allison Macfarlane, a co-author of the study and former head of
the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said SMR designers ‘don’t pay
that much attention in general to the waste, because the thing that makes
money for them is the reactor. But it is important to know about the waste
products, and whether they’re going to pose such difficulties in managing
and then disposing of them. Which they are.’
Electrical Review 2nd Aug 2022
A fake ‘community partnership’ on ocean nuclear waste dumping
Nuclear Waste Service have announced their decision to form a community partnership. Their choice of name for the new group is almost as comic as it is misleading.
At present there is only one member who comes from “the affected community.” Even the two council representatives live 30 and 50 miles from the site. As for partnership, NWS pay the chair and the so called independent facilitator. NWS have written the recruitment criteria for potential members.
To be a true partnership their has to be a level of equality but to quote George Orwell “everyone is equal but the pigs are more equal than others.” In truth this cannot be considered either a community based project or a partnership.
Guardians of the East Coast GOTEC 17th July 2022
Hinkley Point B leaves radioactive waste to be expensively managed for many generations to come.
FRENCH-owned EDF Energy has formally switched off Hinkley Point B’s
second reactor, a nuclear power station in the UK that has generated more
electricity than any other during its 46 years of service. The closure of
the plant at Bridgwater, Somerset, on 1 August, has prompted concerns that
the cost of energy in the UK will have to rise.
Hinkley Point B had been
expected to close in March next year, after EDF announced in 2012 that it
would extend the generating life of the plant by seven years from 2016.
However in November 2020, the energy firm said it had made the “proactive
decision” to move the nuclear power plant into the defuelling phase – the
first stage of the nuclear decommissioning process – no later than 15
July 2022.
Local campaigner Roy Pumfrey, said that Monday’s closure
should “not be a day to celebrate the life of [Hinkley Point B]…Rather,
it’s a day to mourn the production of radioactive waste that is going to
have to be carefully and expensively managed and monitored for many
generations to come.”
Chemical Engineer 2nd Aug 2022
https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/news/hinkley-point-b-nuclear-power-station-closes/
Prairie Island Indian Community planning to set up large renewable energy project, keen to be rid of nuclear power plant and nuclear wastes
Prairie Island Indian Community nuclear concern powers net zero carbon emissions plan,
Catharine Richert, Prairie Island Indian Community, Welch, Minn., August 1, 2022 , Growing up on the Prairie Island Indian Community reservation, Calais Lone Elk had a plan — a set of steps burned in her mind and logged with her school to help her find her family in the event of an explosion at the nearby nuclear power plant.
“If you went to school and something happened out here, where do you meet your parents? Where do you reconnect with your family? Because you can’t come back here,” she said. “Those are things that I don’t think are normal.”
Lone Elk is 37 now, and still constantly reviewing her escape plan for an emergency at the nearby power plant.
It sits just 700 yards away from her community of 100 homes, its powerlines lining backyards and main thoroughfares.
For Lone Elk and others living in Prairie Island, concerns about the nuclear power plant’s safety are a source of low-grade daily stress. Despite official assurances, many people believe it’s bad for their health to be living so close.
“We all have a plan, whether we voice it or not. We all have an idea of what we have to do or what we need to do. And we all know that we have to go up-wind of that nuclear plant,” Lone Elk said
But it’s also a physical reminder of the environmental injustices endured by Native people for generations, said tribal council vice president Shelley Buck.
“Since this plant was created, our energy history here has been focused on the power plant and the nuclear waste that is stored right next door to us,” she said.
Today, the Prairie Island Community is seeking to disentangle itself from a power plant it never wanted. It’s created a $46 million plan to produce net zero carbon emissions within the next decade.
Buck said it’s an ambitious step toward being a sovereign nation that’s energy sovereign, too.
“To do a big project like net zero really helps us change that narrative into something positive showing how energy can be used as a positive force,” she said. “By offsetting or eliminating the carbon that we produce, it’s a positive for everybody.”
Why not go big?’
Prairie Island members are descendants of the Mdewakanton Band of Eastern Dakota. They made their home in southern Minnesota, but lost that land in 1851 in the Treaty of Traverse des Sioux.
It wasn’t until 1934 that the land on the banks of the Mississippi just north of Red Wing became a federally recognized reservation.
The Prairie Island power plant was issued its first operating license in 1974, and it was renewed in 2011. Initially, tribal members say the plant was described to them as a steam power plant. It’s one of two nuclear power plants, the second in Monticello, that Xcel says are critical to its plans of producing carbon-free electricity by 2050, and is considered safe by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
In the early 1990s, Xcel Energy asked the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency permission to store nuclear waste there — at least temporarily until a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain opened, a plan that has since stalled due to local opposition.
As a child, Mikhail Childs remembers his father protesting the prospect of storing nuclear waste so close to the reservation.
“Some of the earliest memories I have are of protestors standing in the road, blocking semi-trucks hauling nuclear waste,” he said. “The way [my dad] explained it to me was that all this land we reside on is sacred … We believe that in our creation story, the creation took place just miles down the river.”
But here’s the twist, and it’s an important one: Through all these years of living with a nuclear power plant next door, Prairie Island hasn’t been powered by the energy generated there, said Buck. The community just recently started getting natural gas from Xcel.
It’s a logistical detail that she said prevented the tribal community from being eligible for the Renewable Development Fund, a pot of state money financed by Xcel customers for renewable energy projects for Xcel service areas, she said.
Then in 2020, a legislative change allowed Prairie Island to tap $46 million from the fund for the project.
While the tribe had toyed with doing wind power and other renewable projects in the past, a large amount of funding created the opportunity to do more.
“Why not go big?” said Buck.
One goal, different solutions
And by big, Buck is referring to a plan that aims to eliminate 20 million pounds of carbon annually through a raft of renewable energy and efficiency upgrades. Prairie Island’s Treasure Island Resort and Casino is the largest energy user on the reservation.
The plan involves multiple ways of achieving that goal, said Andrea Thompson, who has been hired by the tribe as the project’s energy program manager. …………………………………..
Their plan involves constructing a 10-to-15 acre solar array that aims to reduce carbon emissions by more than 550,000 pounds annually, phasing out natural gas in favor of geothermal energy and electrification, and promoting zero-emission and energy efficiency residential upgrades………………………….. more https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-11069613/Global-warming-trigger-nuclear-war-financial-crisis-extinction-level-pandemic-2070.htm
Nuclear waste isn’t an isolated problem with nuclear power…
Until ALL the reactors in America (and globally) are closed, “solving” the nuclear waste problem only helps to keep the reactors operating!
https://acehoffman.blogspot.com/2022/07/nuclear-waste-isnt-isolated-problem.html Ace Hoffman Carlsbad, CA July 31, 2022 Prior to SanO’s shutdown, few SoCal residents, including most activists, worried not so much about the waste, only about shut-down.
We know the waste is a problem, but even for us, here in Southern California, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant being open is STILL a far more likely cause of our own problems, let alone California’s and America’s. DCNPP should be closed *immediately*, not in two or three years, and should certainly not have its license extended under any circumstance. I would estimate that right now, DCNPP is at least a hundred to a thousand times more likely to be the cause of our having to move, or suffering health effects, than San Onofre’s waste is. An operating reactor is incredibly more dangerous than ten year old spent fuel.
Read up on how far Chernobyl radiation spread in Kate Brown’s Manual for Survival. We can use the problem with San Onofre’s waste to push for closure of DCNPP. Once DCNPP is permanently closed, the entire state will finally (hopefully) be interested in solving the waste problem. Until ALL the reactors in America (and globally) are closed, “solving” the nuclear waste problem only helps to keep the reactors operating!
Nuclear waste scattered throughout the country is a major problem for many reasons, including terrorism, accidental airplane strikes, earthquakes, tsunamis etc. etc.
Transporting nuclear waste multiple times is also a major problem for many reasons, including accidents, terrorism, human error, etc.. It should be moved at most only once, if possible.
Neutralization of the Pu and U isotopes is possible on-site. It’s even a patented process! Read up on it in case you missed my report (see link, below). The industry doesn’t like the idea because they want to reprocess the waste. That’s ALSO why the industry is pushing so hard for one central location.
Moving nuclear waste through highly populated areas is a major problem which the U.S. government is well aware of. That is the reason they wanted to build a direct route from San Onofre to Yucca Mountain.
As a 20% owner of Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant in Arizona, Southern California Edison (SCE) could either move the waste there (except for the problems mentioned above, plus the fact that AZ doesn’t want our waste, only their own). SCE could at least pull out of PVNPP entirely if AZ won’t take the waste.
There are many bridges, close to or even more than 100 feet high, between San Clemente and the Chocolate Mountains location that Roger J. is recommending. Moving 123 canisters over those bridges is extremely risky since the containers are NOT designed to withstand a drop of that height. It’s unlikely, IMO, that they can even survive the claimed drop heights of a few dozen feet. I drove over the Mianus River Bridge in Connecticut twice daily, when it “suddenly” collapsed, killing three people. Bridge collapses DO happen. And maintenance is shoddy at best. I HEARD the Mianus River Bridge screech in the days before the pin fully sheered off. Residents had been calling the (ir-)responsible state agencies about the noise for weeks prior to the collapse.
Is it environmentally sound to bury a massive stockpile of nuclear waste beneath the ocean floor? Probably not.
In case you were wondering if it was environmentally sound to bury a
massive stockpile of untreated nuclear waste beneath the ocean floor, the
answer that many UK-based experts will likely give you is: probably not.
But according to The Guardian, that’s exactly what the UK government is
planning to do — and experts are begging them to reconsider, arguing that
burying the waste beneath the seabed could devastate marine life in the
short-term, and leave future generations with an even more serious
environmental catastrophe to sort out.
Futurism 30th July 2022
https://futurism.com/the-byte/uk-bury-nuclear-waste-under-ocean-floor
Western states join New Mexico in resisting nuclear waste storage without state consent
Adrian Hedden, Carlsbad Current-Argus, 29 July 22
A group of governors from across the American West signaled their disapproval of storing spent nuclear fuel in their states without their consent, as two companies plan to do so in New Mexico and Texas despite opposition voiced by both states.
In southeast New Mexico, Holtec International proposed building a temporary storage site near Carlsbad and Hobbs known as a consolidated interim storage facility (CISF) to hold up to 100,000 metric tons of high-level nuclear waste transported from reactors around the country………………………………………………………………………………………………….
the governors of Texas and New Mexico – one Republican and one Democrat – stood staunchly opposed to the projects, arguing they could imperil nearby fossil fuel and agriculture operations.
A bipartisan group of congresspeople from Texas and New Mexico also questioned the projects, introducing legislative bills that would bar such activities by the federal government without the state consent.
The Western Governor’s Association recently passed a resolution demanding the federal government require host states to support CISF projects before they can be built.
The resolution, passed June 30, argued no CISFs should be sited, built or operated within a state without written consent from that state’s governor………………………………
Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott made similar statements regarding the project in his state, and Texas lawmakers passed a bill last year against the proposals.
“No consolidated facility for nuclear waste, whether interim or permanent, or privately or federally owned and operated, shall be located within the geographic boundaries of a western state or U.S. territory without the written consent of the current Governor in whose state or territory the facility is to be located,” read the resolution from the Western Governors Association.
It also called on the federal government to devise regulations that include state consent when siting and licensing facilities to store nuclear waste.
https://www.currentargus.com/story/news/2022/07/29/western-states-new-mexico-resisting-nuclear-waste-storage-texas-radiation-federal-fuel-energy-holtec/65382940007/
Undersea nuclear waste dump off Cumbria would imperil marine life, experts warn
UK looking for storage site for world’s biggest stockpile of untreated waste, including 100 tonnes of plutonium
Guardian, Mattha Busby, Fri 29 Jul 2022
Plans to dispose of radioactive nuclear waste beneath the seabed off the north-west coast of England risk seriously harming marine life including mammals such as dolphins and whales, experts have warned.
Seismic surveys in the Irish Sea near Cumbria get under way on Saturday to explore whether the area is suitable for a proposed facility. The UK government is seeking a location for a deep underground repository to store the world’s largest stockpile of untreated nuclear waste.
Officials have said that a decades-long accumulation of materials including more than 100 tonnes of plutonium – which could create thousands of nuclear bombs – cannot sustainably be stored above ground for ever and they are therefore searching for a site to “keep it safe and secure over the hundreds of thousands of years it will take for the radioactivity to naturally decay”.
In 2019, radioactivity leaked into the soil beneath Sellafield, in Cumbria, which saw a serious leakage in the 1970s and was not built with decommissioning in mind. There are 20 surface facilities that store highly radioactive waste across the UK. About 750,000 cubic metres, equivalent to 70% of the volume of Wembley stadium, is earmarked for “geological disposal”.
But impacts related to noise exposure from seismic gun blasts have been linked to vastly reduced sightings of whales, whose primary sense is acoustic. There is also concern over storing nuclear waste underwater, with just a handful of such sites globally.
The Zoological Society of London’s cetacean strandings investigation programme manager, Rob Deaville, said that seismic blasts can cause habitat avoidance, risk excluding mammals from an area, and raise the risk of decompression sickness. “Potential impacts can also include direct physical effects ranging from temporary or permanent threshold shifts in hearing to direct blast trauma,” he told the Guardian.
There are also concerns that the blasts may drown out mating calls and even cause deaths, after more than 800 dolphins washed ashore in Peru in 2012 after seismic tests. On the Cumbria survey, Deaville added that the area is a known habitat for porpoises, dolphins and other species. “Our teams are very much on standby, in the event we receive increased reports of live/dead strandings over this period.”
In a letter to campaigners shared with the Guardian, an official from the Marine Management Organisation, a public body, acknowledged “the potential disturbance to certain cetacean species” but noted that the plans were largely exempt from regulations.
Critics also suggest it may be impossible to predict the consequences of storing heat-generating nuclear waste beneath the sea in perpetuity.
The chair of Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA), David Blackburn, also leader of the Green party group at Leeds city council, told the Guardian: “The waste would be left in situ for millennia and, no matter how effective the barriers, some of the radioactivity will eventually reach the surface. The rate at which radioactivity would leak from a [geological disposal facility (GDF)] can be poorly predicted and is likely to remain so for an indefinite period.
“Rather than solving a problem for future generations, it could be leaving them a legacy of a nuclear waste dump gradually releasing radioactivity into the environment and cutting off their options for deciding how to deal with this waste.”
The NFLA prefers the idea of a “near surface, near site storage of waste” to allow for monitoring and management, and action in the event of a leakage. “Further scientific research may yield advancements that could mean that radioactive waste can be treated such as to make it less toxic in a shorter time period,” Blackburn added. “Chucking it in a hole in the ground or under the seabed precludes this possibility…………………………….. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/29/undersea-nuclear-waste-dump-off-cumbria-risks-harm-to-marine-life-experts-warn
Nuclear Waste Cleanup: Hanford Site Cleanup Costs Continue to Rise, but Opportunities Exist to Save Tens of Billions of Dollars
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-105809 GAO-22-105809Published: Jul 29, 2022.
Fast Facts
One of the largest, most expensive cleanup projects in the world is at the Department of Energy’s Hanford Site in Washington State. This report describes the status of DOE’s efforts to clean up 54 million gallons of hazardous and radioactive waste stored at the site.
We found that DOE’s plans for addressing the waste assume significant funding increases in the next 10 years.
This report notes that our prior recommendations could save tens of billions of dollars and reduce certain risks if implemented. For example, Congress could consider clarifying DOE’s authority to manage and dispose of some of this waste in a less costly way.
Highlights
What GAO Found
We found that the Department of Energy (DOE) continues to face cost increases and delays in its efforts to address 54 million gallons of radioactive waste stored in tanks at the Hanford Site in Washington State. We also found that Congress and DOE could take steps now that could potentially save tens of billions of dollars in cleanup costs for this waste.
Why GAO Did This Study
The Hanford Site is home to one of the largest and most expensive environmental cleanup projects in the world. After decades of research and production of weapons-grade nuclear materials at the 586-square-mile campus ceased in the late 1980s, DOE began cleanup of hazardous and radioactive waste created as a byproduct of producing nuclear weapons. This waste must be retrieved and treated—or immobilized—before disposal, according to legal requirements and agreements made with federal and state environmental regulators. The Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant is DOE’s current planned approach to treating Hanford’s tank waste.
Senate Report 117-39 includes a provision for us to continue periodic briefings on the treatment of waste at the Hanford Site. This report describes the status of DOE’s cleanup efforts at the Hanford Site, focusing particularly on the approaches, costs, and alternatives for the tank waste cleanup mission.
For more information, contact Nathan Anderson at (202) 512-3841 or andersonn@gao.gov.
Stiff resistance by fishing unions to Japan’s move to dump Fukushima nuclear wastewater into the ocean.
The impact of Japan’s 2011 earthquake and tsunami still ripples through
the country as the nation continues the decommissioning process of the
wrecked Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. In addition to mass
evacuations of the surrounding area, the plant’s meltdown also uncovered
failings by its operator to take proper precautions, resulting in hefty
fines for four former executives.
The latest move involving the failed
plant has brought fresh criticism as Japan’s nuclear regulators approved
a plan to release water from the plant into the ocean, the government said
on Friday. The water, used to cool reactors in the aftermath of the 2011
nuclear disaster, is being stored in huge tanks in the plant, and amounted
to more than 1.3 million tonnes by July. The regulators deemed it safe to
release the water, which will still contain traces of tritium after
treatment, the foreign ministry said in a statement.
Plant operator Tokyo
Electric Power Company (Tepco) would face additional inspections by
regulators, it added. Tepco plans to filter the contaminated water to
remove harmful isotopes apart from tritium, which is hard to remove. Then
it will be diluted and released to free up plant space and allow
decommissioning to continue. The plan has encountered stiff resistance from
fishing unions in the region, which fear its impact on their livelihoods.
Neighbours China, South Korea and Taiwan have also voiced concern.
Irish Independent 24th July 2022
Nuclear industry veteran to lead nuclear waste group’s board – ( the revolving industry-govt door)
Nuclear expert to lead nuke waste group’s board,
The new chair of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s board of directors is a familiar face with an extensive background in the nuclear industry.
Glenn Jager, who was previously a vice-chair on the group’s board, is a retired chief nuclear officer with Ontario Power Generation and has worked in the nuclear sector for more than 30 years, the agency said this week in news release.
The Nuclear Waste Management Organization is to select a site next year for a proposed underground facility to store spent fuel rods from nuclear reactors.
One of the sites under consideration is a remote area 35 kilometres west of Ignace. The other is in South Bruce in southwestern Ontario in the vicinity of an existing nuclear-power station.
Japan approves nuclear-contaminated water discharge plan, may turn Japanese people into ‘sick men of Asia,’ seafood consumption and export nosedive
By Zhang Hui and Xing Xiaojing Jul 22, 2022 , Japan’s nuclear regulator on Friday approved the discharge plan of Fukushima nuclear-contaminated water, with Chinese observers voicing concerns that the release of the contaminated water into the ocean may start earlier than the previous schedule of next spring and warning that Japan will bear the brunt of damage, with people’s lives under serious threat and seafood consumption and export nosediving.
………………… Although the Foreign Ministry statement said this does not mean that TEPCO can immediately start the discharge of the contaminated water into the sea as there are remaining processes, such as the Japanese regulator’s inspections to check and confirm the installation status of the discharge facilities, Chinese observers believed that Japan may accelerate its scheduled plan, making the release start earlier than April 2023.
Chang Yen-chiang, director of the Yellow Sea and Bohai Sea Research Institute of Dalian Maritime University, who has been closely following the Japanese government’s decision on discharging Fukushima wastewater, told the Global Times on Friday that the administrative process for releasing the contaminated water was done in a really fast manner, as it only took Japan five days from announcing completion of construction for undersea tunnel outlet to approving the plan.
The TEPCO has basically completed the construction of an undersea tunnel outlet to dump the nuclear-contaminated water, the Kyodo News agency reported on Sunday.
Japan’s latest move apparently aroused lots of concern and opposition from neighboring countries.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said at Friday’s media briefing that it is extremely irresponsible for Japan to attempt to create a fait accompli, regardless of various parties’ concerns and China firmly opposes it.
China once again urges Japan to earnestly fulfill its due international obligations, dispose of the nuclear-contaminated water in a scientific, open, transparent and safe manner, and stop pushing through the ocean discharge plan, Wang said.
……………. Meanwhile, Japan’s seafood exports will be greatly hindered, which would hurt the economy and local fishery groups, observers said.
Many countries, including the US and UK, banned imports of food products manufactured in and around Fukushima Prefecture following the 2011 nuclear disaster, and some countries and regions have not lifted the ban even now.
Fishery groups in Japan have repeatedly said they were firmly opposed to the plan due to concerns over a negative impact on the industry. ……………..
China and other stakeholders could through the UN request an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice, to prove the release is illegal, Chang said.
Yu also advised countries to conduct maritime environment investigation, which could be evidence in seeking compensation from Japan in cases of biological resources damages and other damage.
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202207/1271183.shtml
All at Sea: Energy Security Bill reveals UK government preference to dump waste offshore
https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/all-at-sea-energy-security-bill-reveals-government-preference-to-dump-waste-offshore/ 20 July 22, The Government has published a factsheet in support of the new Energy Security Bill which has confirmed the long-held suspicion of Britain’s Nuclear Free Local Authorities that the nuclear industry intends to dump its deadly legacy of radioactive waste out at sea.
Tucked away in this page-turner is a reference that could be missed on page seven revealing that with refence to the government stated ambition to Prepare for our nuclear future and clean up the past’, that ‘The Bill will also facilitate the safe, and cost-effective clean-up of the UK’s nuclear sites, ensuring the UK is a responsible nuclear state by clarifying that a geological disposal facility located deep below the seabed will be licensed.’[1]
That the intention is to dump the waste at a location out at sea has helpfully been made plain in the latest infomercial published by the Theddlethorpe GDF Community Partnership
20th July 2022
All at Sea: Energy Security Bill reveals government preference to dump waste offshore
The Government has published a factsheet in support of the new Energy Security Bill which has confirmed the long-held suspicion of Britain’s Nuclear Free Local Authorities that the nuclear industry intends to dump its deadly legacy of radioactive waste out at sea.
Tucked away in this page-turner is a reference that could be missed on page seven revealing that with refence to the government stated ambition to Prepare for our nuclear future and clean up the past’, that ‘The Bill will also facilitate the safe, and cost-effective clean-up of the UK’s nuclear sites, ensuring the UK is a responsible nuclear state by clarifying that a geological disposal facility located deep below the seabed will be licensed.’[1]
That the intention is to dump the waste at a location out at sea has helpfully been made plain in the latest infomercial published by the Theddlethorpe GDF Community Partnership
This latest plan to jeopardise the marine environment is par for the course for successive British Governments which, without a care for the ecology of British waters, have previously chosen to recklessly dump deadly munitions and poison gas into our oceans.
In November 2020, the NFLA published a horrifying report commissioned from marine pollution expert, Tim Deere-Jones, which revealed that evidence was mounting that around two million tons of unused wartime munitions were dumped in, or around, the Beaufort’s Dyke in the Irish Sea in the interwar and post-war years, up until at least the mid-1970’s.[2]
Alongside conventional explosives, this deadly legacy included at least 14,000 tons of phosgene gas and a cocktail of other nasties such as ‘canisters of chemical warfare agents including sarin, tabun, mustard gas, cyanide, … and the biological warfare agent anthrax’.
The New Scientist has reported instances of munitions washing up on Scottish beaches and the British Geological Survey confirmed that explosions generated by degrading munitions are a relatively frequent occurrence and that at least one of those explosions was observed to have generated an explosive force equivalent to approximately 5.5 tonnes of TNT.
The report also revealed that radioactive waste has previously been dumped into the Irish Sea, in the Beaufort’s Dyke, in the Firth of Tay and off the island of Arran, including radium-coated aircraft dials, laboratory waste, luminous paint and waste encased in concrete within metal drums.
Responding to the latest revelation, Councillor David Blackburn, Chair of the NFLA Steering Committee, said:
“Clearly then the Energy Security Bill demonstrates that once again the British Government’s plan is to dump its deadly legacy of high-level radioactive waste offshore whatever the long-term detriment to the marine environment and regardless of local and international opposition, and the Theddlethorpe Community Partnership diagram makes this intention writ large.
“The NFLA has far from convinced that however well engineered a nuclear waste dump, or Geological Disposal Facility as the nuclear industry likes to call it, is that the structure of such a facility will not become compromised over the 100,000 years it is required to hold waste whilst it remains radioactive. We fear that in future centuries we shall see radioactive waste poisoning our oceans and beaches.
“This is an especial issue of concern in West Cumbria, where three of the possible four current sites for the dump are under consideration; for here for generations Sellafield has been leaking its toxics into the Irish Sea.
“The NFLA will continue to oppose a GDF, especially one at sea. Our policy is to see radioactive waste properly monitored and managed in a near surface facility, rather than dumped out of sight, out of mind and forgotten about!”
For more information, please contact NFLA Secretary Richard Outram by email on richard.outram@manchester.gov.uk or mobile 07583097793
Consultation on proposed changes to storage of radioactive wastes at Hinkley Point C NPP
The Environment Agency has launched a consultation on a proposed change to
the way radioactive waste will be stored at Hinkley Point C nuclear power
station near Bridgwater. Currently the Office for Nuclear Regulation
states: The waste will be stored on the Hinkley Point C site pending
availability of the GDF and the waste meeting the waste acceptance criteria
for the site (e.g. some heat generating radioactive waste may require
on-site storage until the thermal output has reduced).
Pressurised water reactors at Hinkley Point C will use uranium fuel to create heat and
generate electricity when operating. Once used within the reactor, nuclear
fuel will be stored on-site before being sent off-site to a Geological
Disposal Facility (GDF).
NNB Generation Company (HPC) Limited was
originally issued a radioactive substances environmental permit in 2013. In
the original design radioactive waste was to be stored on-site in ‘wet
storage’ – a method of submerging and storing in water. The operator has
now decided to change the technology by which it will store spent nuclear
fuel, from wet storage to ‘dry storage’.
Dry storage will see used nuclear fuel stored in sealed containers within a facility, before it is
sent to the GDF. This means the operator now seeks to change its
radioactive substances environmental permit to remove or amend specific
conditions related to the previous wet storage technology that are no
longer relevant. The operator has said altering the storage method will not
change the expected radiation dose to the general public from discharges or
the wider environment, which remains incredibly small. Separately, NNB
Generation Company (HPC) Limited will be seeking the necessary changes to
its Development Consent Order for Hinkley Point C in the autumn.
Somerset Live 20th July 2022
https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/locals-urged-say-proposed-change-7351721
We need a safer interim storage solution for Ontario’s nuclear wastes.
– Angela Bischoff, Ontario Clean Air Allance. 15 Jul 22. The International Joint Commission’s Great Lakes Water Quality Board is calling for Ontario Power Generation’s (OPG) nuclear waste storage facilities to be “hardened” and located away from shorelines to prevent them from becoming compromised by flooding and erosion.
According to a report prepared for OPG, the total capital cost of building above-ground, attack-resistant, reinforced concrete vaults at the Pickering, Darlington and Bruce Nuclear Stations would be approximately $1 billion. This safer interim storage solution can be fully paid for by OPG’s nuclear waste storage fund, which has a market value of $11.3 billion.
We need a safer interim storage solution for Ontario’s nuclear wastes
The International Joint Commission’s Great Lakes Water Quality Board is calling for Ontario Power Generation’s (OPG) nuclear waste storage facilities to be “hardened” and located away from shorelines to prevent them from becoming compromised by flooding and erosion.
According to a report prepared for OPG, the total capital cost of building above-ground, attack-resistant, reinforced concrete vaults at the Pickering, Darlington and Bruce Nuclear Stations would be approximately $1 billion. This safer interim storage solution can be fully paid for by OPG’s nuclear waste storage fund, which has a market value of $11.3 billion.
As our new report, A Safer Interim Storage Solution for Ontario’s Nuclear Wastes, reveals this is urgent for multiple reasons:
– The total radioactivity of the nuclear wastes stored at the Pickering, Darlington and Bruce Nuclear Stations is 700 times greater than the total radiation released to the atmosphere by the Fukushima accident in 2011.
– OPG is currently storing these wastes in conventional commercial storage buildings.
– According to OPG, a new off-site facility for the storage of these wastes will not be in service until 2043 at the earliest.
Above-ground, attack-resistant, reinforced concrete vaults will provide much greater protection against deliberate attacks and greater radioactivity containment in the event of leaks, ruptures or other incidents than conventional commercial storage buildings.
– Building safer interim storage facilities will also create good jobs.
In Germany, six nuclear stations have hardened storage facilities. The concrete walls and roofs on these facilities are 1.2 to 1.3 metres thick. This is the kind of much safer design that Ontario should be copying as we wait for the Nuclear Waste Management Organization to find a “willing host” community to take these dangerous wastes.
What you can do
Please contact Premier Ford and Energy Minister Todd Smith and tell them that we need a safer interim storage option for OPG’s nuclear wastes. Ask them to order OPG to store its high-level radioactive wastes in above-ground, attack-resistant, reinforced concrete vaults at its nuclear stations.
1 This Month
9 September – online public forum THREE MILE ISLAND:
7-8:30 PM ET,
Legacy, resistance to reopening – https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_-LGJU4j6TD2Hgf0rpgAr1A#/registration
The nuclear industry and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission are threatening to restart Pennsylvania’s permanently closed and decommissioning Three Mile Island Unit 1 nuclear power station. Three expert speakers will present the resistance to this dangerous misadventure in a webinar hosted by the Clamshell Alliance, Beyond Nuclear and Massachusetts Peace Action.
No Nuclear in Cwm Llynfi! Stop the nuclear power station near Maesteg.
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- September 2026 (39)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (375)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 