Japan OKs plan to release Fukushima nuclear plant wastewater
Japan’s nuclear regulator has approved plans by the operator of the wrecked Fukushima nuclear plant to release its treated radioactive wastewater into the sea next year, saying the outlined methods are safe and risks to the environment minimal
By Mari Yamaguchi Associated Press, May 18, 2022,
………. There is still concern in the community and neighboring countries about the potential health hazards of the release of the wastewater that includes tritium — a byproduct of nuclear power production and a possible carcinogen at high levels.
The government and TEPCO say more than 60 isotopes selected for treatment can be lowered to meet safety standards, except for tritium, but that it is safe if diluted. Scientists say impact of long term low-dose exposure to the environment and humans are unknown, and that tritium can have a bigger impact on humans when consumed in fish than in water.
,,,,,,,,,, Under the plan, TEPCO will transport water that has been treated to below releasable levels through a pipeline from the tanks to a coastal facility, where the water is diluted with seawater.
From there, the water will enter an undersea tunnel to be discharged at a point about 1 kilometer (0.6 mile) from the plant to ensure safety and minimize the impact on local fishing and the environment, according to TEPCO.
The plan will become official after a 30-day public review, a formality that is not expected to overturn the approval.
………..The contaminated water is being stored in about 1,000 tanks at the damaged plant, which officials say must be removed so that facilities can be built for its decommissioning. The tanks are expected to reach their capacity of 1.37 million tons next year — slower than an earlier estimate of later this year……….. https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/japan-oks-plan-release-fukushima-nuclear-plant-wastewater-84800836
The dangerous business of dismantling America’s aging nuclear plants
The NRC has given Holtec permission to pare back safety and security requirements at its plants, including security personnel, cybersecurity, emergency planning, terrorist attack drills and accident insurance, according to documents on the agency’s website.
“The NRC has not figured out a permanent solution” to nuclear waste………. “They are using Holtec as a Band-Aid.”
Accidents at New Jersey’s Oyster Creek power plant have spurred calls for stricter oversight of the burgeoning nuclear decommissioning industry Washington Post, By Douglas MacMillan PORKED RIVER, N.J. — The new owner took over the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in 2019, promising to dismantle one of the nation’s oldest nuclear plants at minimal cost and in record time. Then came a series of worrisome accidents.
The new owner took over the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in 2019, promising to dismantle one of the nation’s oldest nuclear plants at minimal cost and in record time. Then came a series of worrisome accidents.
One worker was struck by a 100-ton metal reactor dome. Another was splashed with radioactive water, according to internal incident reports and regulatory inspection reports reviewed by The Washington Post. Another worker drove an excavator into an electrical wire on his first day on the job, knocking out power to 31,000 homes and businesses on the New Jersey coast, according to a police report and the local power company.
All three incidents occurred on the watch of Holtec International, a nuclear equipment manufacturer based in Jupiter, Fla. Though the company until recently had little experience shutting down nuclear plants, Holtec has emerged as a leader in nuclear cleanup, a burgeoning field riding an expected wave of closures as licenses expire for the nation’s aging nuclear fleet.
Over the past three years, Holtec has purchased three plants in three states and expects to finalize a fourth this summer. The company is seeking to profitably dismantle them by replacing hundreds of veteran plant workers with smaller, less-costly crews of contractors and eliminating emergency planning measures, documents and interviews show. While no one has been seriously injured at Oyster Creek, the missteps are spurring calls for stronger government oversight of the entire cleanup industry.
In the nearly three years Holtec has owned Oyster Creek, regulators have documented at least nine violations of federal rules, including the contaminated water mishap, falsified weapons inspection reports and other unspecified security lapses. That’s at least as many as were found over the preceding 10 years at the plant, when it was owned by Exelon, one of the nation’s largest utility companies, according to The Post’s review of regulatory records.,…………………
Holtec is pioneering an experimental new business model. During the lifetime of America’s 133 nuclear reactors, ratepayers paid small fees on their monthly energy bills to fill decommissioning trust funds, intended to cover the eventual cost of deconstructing the plants. Trust funds for the country’s 94 operating and 14 nonoperating nuclear reactors now total about $86 billion, according to Callan, a San Francisco-based investment consulting firm.
After a reactor is dismantled and its site cleared, some of these trust funds must return any money left over to ratepayers. But others permit cleanup companies to keep any surplus as profit — creating incentives to cut costs at sites that house some of the most dangerous materials on the planet.
Even after reactors are shut down, long metal rods containing radioactive pellets — known as spent fuel — are stored steps away, in cooling pools and steel-and-concrete casks. Nuclear safety experts say that an industrial accident or a terrorist attack at any of these sites could result in a radiological release with severe impacts to workers and nearby residents, as well as to the environment.
(Sarah L. Voisin/The Washington Post)
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the independent federal agency tasked with overseeing safety at nuclear sites, conducts regular inspections during the decommissioning process. But state and local officials say the NRC has failed to safeguard the public from risks at shut-down plants, deferring too readily to companies like Holtec.
“The NRC is not doing their job,” said Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who has pushed the agency to adopt stricter regulations around plant decommissioning. “We need a guaranteed system that prioritizes communities and safety, and we don’t have that right now.”
The NRC’s leadership is divided over the role regulators should play. The agency was created in 1974, as the first generation of commercial reactors was going online, and its rules were mainly designed to safeguard the operation of active plants and nuclear-material sites. As reactors shut down, the NRC began reducing inspections and exempting plants from safety and security rules.
Last November, the NRC approved a new rule that would automatically qualify shut-down plants for looser safety and security restrictions.
Continue readingCompany Agrees to Further Tests of Nuke Plant’s Wastewater
The company dismantling a former nuclear power plant along Cape Cod Bay won’t release radioactive water into the bay unless tests confirm local marine life won’t be harmed, U.S. Sen. Ed Markey’s office said Wednesday.The Massachusetts Democrat held a hearing in Plymouth, Massachusetts, on Friday about nuclear safety and security issues, where the decommissioning of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station by Holtec International was discussed.
Markey said Holtec officials assured him they wouldn’t discharge radioactive water from the plant into the bay without the consent of stakeholders. The company followed up with a letter this week to Markey, which his office released……..
Local residents, shell fishermen and politicians fiercely oppose discharging the water into the bay. Alternatively, Holtec could evaporate the contaminated water or truck it to a facility in another state.
Local residents, shell fishermen and politicians fiercely oppose discharging the water into the bay ……. https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/company-agrees-to-further-tests-of-nuke-plants-wastewater/2717659/
Cost of living: Ministers consider delaying nuclear power decommissioning to help ease crisis
Government will consider plans only if nuclear regulator believes it is safe to keep reactors online
inews By Richard Vaughan Ministers are looking into delaying the decommissioning of existing nuclear power stations in a bid to keep soaring energy prices down in the coming years, i understands.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson has demanded his Cabinet look into ways to tackle the cost of living crisis, urging them to be “as creative as possible” in devising measures to ease the burden on households.
Whitehall sources have told i that among the options being examined are plans to keep existing nuclear reactors going beyond the date they are due to be taken off grid……..
Six of the UK’s seven nuclear reactors are due to go offline by 2030. Due to the rampant cost of fossil fuels, nuclear power is now among the cheaper energy sources for the UK, prompting Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng to look at whether they could be kept operational.
Nuclear industry insiders believe the Hinkley Point B reactor, which is due for decommission in July, could be extended for several more years.
Six of the UK’s seven nuclear reactors are due to go offline by 2030. Due to the rampant cost of fossil fuels, nuclear power is now among the cheaper energy sources for the UK, prompting Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng to look at whether they could be kept operational.
Nuclear industry insiders believe the Hinkley Point B reactor, which is due for decommission in July, could be extended for several more years.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/cost-of-living-ministers-consider-delaying-nuclear-power-decommissioning-to-help-ease-crisis-1625223
The future of nuclear waste: what’s the plan and can it be safe?
The future of nuclear waste: what’s the plan and can it be safe? The Conversation , Lewis Blackburn, EPSRC Doctoral Prize Fellow in Materials Science, University of Sheffield 11 May 22, The UK is planning to significantly expand its nuclear capability, in an effort to decrease its reliance on carbon-based fossil fuels. The government is aiming to construct up to eight new reactors over the next couple of decades, with a view to increasing power capacity from approximately 8 gigawatts (GW) today to 24GW by 2050. This would meet around 25% of the forecast UK energy demand, compared to around 16% in 2020
As part of this plan to triple nuclear capacity, also in the works is a £210 million investment for Rolls-Royce to develop and produce a fleet of small modular reactors (SMRs). …………
New reactors will inevitably mean more radioactive waste. Nuclear waste decommissioning, as of 2019, was already estimated to cost UK taxpayers £3 billion per year. The vast majority of our waste is held in storage facilities at or near ground level, mostly at Sellafield nuclear waste site in Cumbria, which is so large it has the infrastructure of a small town.
But above-ground nuclear storage isn’t a feasible long term plan – governments, academics and scientists are in agreement that permanent disposal below ground is the only long-term strategy that satisfies security and environmental concerns. So what plans are underway, and can they be delivered safely?
……….. Previous ideas have included disposing of the extra waste in space, in the sea and below the ocean floor where tectonic plates converge, but each has been shelved as too risky.Now, almost every nation plans to isolate radioactive waste from the environment in an underground, highly engineered structure called a geological disposal facility (GDF). Some models see GDFs constructed at 1,000 metres underground but 700 metres is more realistic. These facilities will receive low, intermediate or high level nuclear wastes (classified as such according to radioactivity and half-life) and store them safely for up to hundreds of thousands of years.
The process for creating such a facility is not simple. The organisation responsible for delivering the GDF, which in the UK is Nuclear Waste Services (NWS), must not only overcome huge environmental and technical issues but also earn the public’s support.
Will all GDFs look the same?Although generic design concepts do exist, each GDF will have unique aspects based on the size and constitution of the waste inventory and the geology of where it is installed. Every nation will tailor its GDF to its individual needs, under the scrutiny of regulators and the public.Underpinning all GDFs, however, will be what is known as the multi-barrier concept. This combines man-made and natural barriers to isolate nuclear waste from the environment, and allow it to steadily decay.
The system for preparing high-level waste for storage in such a system will start with spent nuclear fuel rods from reactors. First, any uranium and plutonium that is still usable for future reactions will be recovered. The residual waste will then be dried and dispersed into a host glass, which is used because glass is tough, durable in groundwater and resistant to radiation. The molten glass will then be poured into a metal container and solidified, so that there are two layers of protection.
This packaged waste will then be surrounded by a backfill of clay or cement, which seals the excavated rock cavities and underground tunnel structures. Hundreds of metres of rock itself will act as the final layer of containment.
How is the UK programme going?The UK GDF programme is in its early stages. The siting process operates on a so-called volunteerism approach, in which communities can put themselves forward as potential sites to host the facility. At present, a working group (Theddlethorpe, Lincolnshire) and three community partnerships (Allerdale, Mid Copeland and South Copeland in Cumbria) have formed. Whilst working groups are at earlier stages of the siting process, the next steps for community partnerships are to begin more extensive geological surveys, followed by drilling boreholes to assess the underlying rock………………..
The UK government aims to identify a suitable site within the next 15-20 years, after which construction can start. The timescale from siting to closing and sealing the first UK GDF is 100 years, making this the largest UK infrastructure project ever……….
Is there another way?
It is the scientific consensus, internationally, that the GDF approach is the most technically feasible way to permanently dispose of nuclear waste. ………
The only other approach that has received any traction is the deep borehole disposal (DBD) concept. At face value, this is not too dissimilar from a GDF approach; drilling boreholes much deeper than a GDF would be (up to several kilometers) and putting waste packages at the bottom. Countries such as Norway are considering this approach. https://theconversation.com/the-future-of-nuclear-waste-whats-the-plan-and-can-it-be-safe-181884
Vitrification of Hanford’s nuclear waste is plagued with problems, would emit toxic vapours
Turning Hanford’s nuclear waste into glass logs would emit toxic vapors, says document, https://www.opb.org/article/2022/05/09/turning-hanfords-nuclear-waste-into-glass-logs-emits-toxic-vapors-says-document/
By Allison Frost (OPB) May 10, 2022 The Hanford nuclear reservation in south central Washington state holds 56 million gallons of radioactive waste. The facility produced plutonium for U.S. atomic bombs in WWII, and it kept producing for the country’s nuclear weapons through the late 1980s.
The plan to contain that waste by turning it into glass logs, or vitrification, has been plagued with problems for decades. Some of the waste contained in underground tanks is leaking into the Columbia River. Workers have sued over exposure to toxic waste, and the current federal funding for cleanup is less than federal and state lawmakers say is needed.
Now, an internal Department of Energy document says that the vitrification process would create a toxic vapor. The next public hearing on the nuclear plant will be held Tuesday, May 10, and public comments are being accepted through June 4. We’re joined by freelance reporter John Stang who’s been covering Hanford for three decades and obtained the internal DOE document.
Plutonium contamination in Ohio, USA
Russian nuclear warheads bought, processed and material shipped to Southern Ohio, https://local12.com/news/investigates/russian-nuclear-warheads-bought-processed-and-shipped-material-to-southern-ohio-cincinnati-duane-pohlman-investigate-investigative-weapons-ship-russia-government-contaminated-radioactive by DUANE POHLMAN, 9 May 22,
QUESTIONS OF CONTAMINATION AND CANCER
The Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PORTS) is a massive facility, dominating the landscape in Pike County. It was also a massive fixture in America’s front lines during the Cold War.
For nearly five decades, from 1954 to 2001, PORTS processed uranium, critical to making America’s nuclear arsenal and fueling its nuclear navy.
Now closed and partially dismantled, PORTS is considered “ground zero” for claims of radioactive contamination in nearby communities, now riddled with rare cancers that are claiming children.
“We’ve got alarming cancer rates,” said Matt Brewster, noting Pike County is number one in Ohio for cancer rates, as compiled by the state health department.
THE PLUTONIUM PUZZLE
The US Department of Energy (DOE) which continues to oversee PORTS, insists radiation around the plant is at safe levels.
However, some of the radioactive particles in the air around PORTS are not the uranium you would expect to find, but something much more deadly: plutonium.
“The chemical and radiological toxicity associated with plutonium is many, many times worse than uranium,” notes Dr. David Manuta, who was the chief scientist at PORTS from 1992 to 2000.
Plutonium and plutonium-related particles are being picked up around Ports, both by the DOE’s own instruments and by independent studies.
In 2017, a DOE air monitor across from the now-closed Zahn’s Corner Middle School, picked up Neptunium-237. The following year, the same monitor found Americium-241. Both elements are byproducts of plutonium.
Ketterer Report by Local12WKRC on Scribd AT TOP https://local12.com/news/investigates/russian-nuclear-warheads-bought-processed-and-shipped-material-to-southern-ohio-cincinnati-duane-pohlman-investigate-investigative-weapons-ship-russia-government-contaminated-radioactive
Why shoreline nuclear power plants pose problem for Great Lakes
Carol Thompson, The Detroit News, 4 May 22, The dozens of nuclear power reactors situated along the Great Lakes shoreline have produced a sizeable amount of electricity for Canada’s Ontario province and the midwestern United States since they first came online in 1963.
But the reactors also will produce a sizeable problem for the region in the coming decades, as the majority of them are scheduled to shut down and be decommissioned without places to send their nuclear waste for permanent storage. ………. (Subscribers only) https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/environment/2022/05/04/why-shoreline-nuclear-power-plants-pose-problem-great-lakes/7445044001/?gnt-cfr=1
Czech state looking for place to store nuclear waste as EU deadline shortens
English Radio CZ 05/02/2022 The Ministry of Industry is looking for ways to speed up the planned construction of a nuclear waste facility in the Czech Republic, which would enable the country to fulfil the EU’s taxonomy plan for using nuclear energy as a clean source. However, the plan is running into opposition from local districts who don’t want nuclear waste stored near their homes. The Czech Republic has two nuclear power plants, but nowhere to store its nuclear waste. At least in the long term. For now, nuclear waste is being stored in barrels located inside the power plants themselves, says Jiří Bezděk, the spokesman for the Dukovany nuclear power plant, who took Czech Radio on a tour of the facility.
You can see we are now in the storage facility for used nuclear fuel. This fuel can be stored in containers for a period of up to 60 years. Thereafter, you can take it out, check the container and put the fuel back in for another six decades.”
……….. the RWRA has nowhere to store the waste.
Originally, the Czech government counted on building a deep nuclear waste storage facility by 2065, but the EUs taxonomy plan which was agreed earlier this year, has cut that deadline to the year 2050.
Both Deputy Industry Minister Tomáš Ehler and the head of the country’s Nuclear Safety Office Dana Drábová have said that fulfilling the shorter deadline is possible on paper. However, it necessitates speeding up relevant research activities as well as finally deciding on where the state wants to build the storage facility.
Founded in 2001, the state’s Radioactive Waste Repository Authority has had over 20 years’ time to find a suitable storage location. And it has. Four locations were approved by the government as suitable prospective sites for a deep storage facility.
However, local residents of each of these proposed sites are strongly against the construction. Some of them have banded into the “Platform against deep storage”, a civic organisation that lobbies for an alternative to deep nuclear waste storage and for the construction of any such facility to be subject to a local district vote. The organisation’s secretary, Edvard Sequens, says that locals have more say in the process in other countries…………….. https://english.radio.cz/czech-state-looking-place-store-nuclear-waste-eu-deadline-shortens-8749305
Where will Connecticut’s nuclear waste go?
Connecticut has been living more than half a century with what was supposed to have been temporary spent fuel storage.
On any day since the mid 1950s, there might be multiple reactors in or around the Thames River, welded into the nuclear powered submarines stationed at the U.S. Naval Submarine Base in Groton
The Navy won’t discuss how it disposes of its spent nuclear waste.
It’s in question as the state pushes toward a green future, By Edmund H. Mahony, Hartford Courant, May 01, 2022, The federal government is jump-starting its long-stalled search for a place to store the tons of spent nuclear fuel piling up in Connecticut and other states.
…… The U.S. Department of Energy is reviewing responses to a request for information it issued to nuclear industry stakeholders late last year as a first step in another attempt to resolve one of the thorniest challenges of the nuclear age: how and where to store the highly-radioactive, spent uranium that is the waste product of nuclear energy production.
The state legislature this session approved a bill requiring all electric power consumed in Connecticut to be produced from carbon free sources by 2040. Another bill, written with smaller, better reactors in mind, is pending. It would lift a state moratorium on new nuclear power production — a moratorium enacted decades ago over the same concerns about the state’s spent fuel stockpiles — but limit new production to the Millstone nuclear complex in Waterford, where Dominion Energy has what was intended to be a temporary nuclear waste storage facility.
The country’s inability to figure out what to do with waste stockpiles has become an impediment for nuclear-generating states like Connecticut…… That has power industry and private capital looking toward the development of a new generation of smaller [really?] safer, more efficient [really?] nuclear reactors — reactors that will continue to produce waste that needs to be disposed of someplace safe.
……………………….. “Disposal is absolutely an issue,” State Sen. Norm Needleman said. “That is why this is limited to a site that is a going plant today where they already are dealing with that problem. I would not at this moment support any expansion until the Department of Energy finds someplace. If you are going to build nuclear power plants and you are going to be siting 200 piles of nuclear waste, it is better to have it buried 2,000 feet below ground someplace, rather than having it spread all over.”
……………………… Connecticut has been living more than half a century with what was supposed to have been temporary spent fuel storage.
On any day since the mid 1950s, there might be multiple reactors in or around the Thames River, welded into the nuclear powered submarines stationed at the U.S. Naval Submarine Base in Groton, or just down river at the Electric Boat Division of General Dynamics where the ships are built. For years the Navy operated an experimental reactor in Windsor.
Beginning in the late 1960s, four commercial reactors produced power in Connecticut — one at the Connecticut Yankee plant on Haddam Neck, a peninsula stretching into the lower Connecticut River, and three on Millstone Point at the east end of Long Island Sound.
Two of the three Millstone reactors remain operational. Connecticut Yankee has been closed and decommissioned.
The Navy won’t discuss how it disposes of its spent nuclear waste. Because the federal government has not been able to find a politically acceptable commercial disposal solution, every bit of radioactive uranium expended in the production of commercial power in Connecticut remains under guard in what are designed as impregnable — but temporary — storage containers at the Millstone and Connecticut Yankee sites……………………………………
as much as 90,000 metric tons of spent fuel continues to pile up and remain stranded at what were supposed to be temporary sites around the country.
On Haddam Neck, there are 43 enormous concrete and steel storage casks containing radioactive material on the site of the decommissioned Connecticut Yankee plant. At the Millstone site in Waterford, waste is divided between a storage pool and 47 storage modules. Plant operator Dominion Energy says it has the capacity to store a total of 135 modules.
The storage costs, which involve protecting the spent fuel from hazards running from terrorist attacks to natural disasters, is enormous. The cost at Connecticut Yankee is about $10 million a year — at a plant that shut down in 1996 because it was no longer cost effective after 28 years of operation.
The federal government and, ultimately, taxpayers are picking up the cost. The law that was to make Yucca Mountain a national repository carried a provision obligating the Department of Energy to remove and store spent fuel from commercial reactors beginning in 1998. Without a repository, the department cannot meet its obligation. Plant operators sued, and the government has been held responsible for incurred storage costs.
There are intangible costs to temporary storage, too…………………………….
Just how dangerous are the nuclear wastes at WIPP waste dump in New Mexico, and at Los Alamos National Laboratory?
Report: Some Los Alamos nuclear waste too hazardous to move via Santa Fe New Mexican, The Atomic Age, By Scott Wyland Oct 28 2017, https://lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/atomicage/2021/08/04/report-some-los-alamos-nuclear-waste-too-hazardous-to-move-via-santa-fe-new-mexico/comment-page-2/
Los Alamos National Laboratory has identified 45 barrels of radioactive waste so potentially explosive — due to being mixed with incompatible chemicals — that crews have been told not to move them and instead block off the area around the containers, according to a government watchdog’s report.
Crews have worked to ferret out drums containing volatile compounds and move them to a more secure domed area of the lab after the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board issued a scathing report last year saying there were possibly hundreds of barrels of unstable nuclear waste.
The safety board estimated an exploding waste canister could expose workers to 760 rem, far beyond the threshold of a lethal dose. A rem is a unit used to measure radiation exposure. In its latest weekly report, the safety board said crews at Newport News Nuclear BWXT Los Alamos, also known as N3B — the contractor in charge of cleaning up the lab’s legacy waste — have pegged 60 barrels with volatile mixtures and have relocated 15 drums to the domed area.
[…]
Officials at the U.S. Department of Energy’s environmental management office said they couldn’t comment on the report or on how the lab stores waste, citing lack of time to answer questions.
Volatile waste mixtures have received more attention since 2014 when a waste container from the Los Alamos lab packaged with a blend of organic cat litter and nitrate salts burst in an underground chamber of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad. The radioactive release contaminated the storage site so extensively it shut down for three years and cost $2 billion to clean up.
Hirsch noted some radioactive vapors escaped from WIPP’s underground site to the open air amid the leak. Federal reports have described a small amount of radioactivity slipping through exhaust vents that have since been sealed.
The fact that any radiation was emitted from below ground illustrates how destructive a waste barrel blowing up above ground could be, Hirsch said.
In the October report, the safety board said lab personnel had failed to analyze chemicals present in hundreds of containers of transuranic nuclear waste, making it possible for incompatible chemicals to cause a container to explode. Crews also never sufficiently estimated how much radiation would be released by such an event.
Waste with that kind of hair trigger should only be analyzed in a “hot cell,” with walls several feet thick, blast-proof glass and robotic arms that a technician operates to handle the materials, Hirsch said.
Read more at Report: Some Los Alamos nuclear waste too hazardous to move
Scientists: Japan’s Plan To Dump Nuclear Waste Into The Pacific Ocean May Not Be Safe
CIVIL BEAT, By Thomas Heaton , 25 Apr 22,
A panel of scientists has identified critical gaps in the data supporting the safe discharge of wastewater into the Pacific.
Independent scientists are questioning Japan’s plans to dump just over 1 million tons of nuclear wastewater into the Pacific Ocean, following a review of the available evidence.
The panel of multi-disciplinary scientists, hired by the intergovernmental Pacific Islands Forum, has not found conclusive evidence that the discharge would be entirely safe, and one marine biologist fears contamination could affect the food system.
Last year Japan announced that wastewater from the Fukushima-Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, destroyed in March 2011 following the Tohoku Earthquake and tsunami, would be dropped into the Pacific in 2023.
The announcement triggered immediate concern from nations and territories in the Asia-Pacific region and led the Pacific Islands Forum to hire a panel of five independent experts to review the plan.
Previously, it was broadly believed that dropping the wastewater into the ocean would be safe, given it had been treated with “advanced liquid processing system” technology, which removes radioactive materials from contaminated water.
But panel scientist Robert Richmond, director of the University of Hawaii Kewalo Marine Laboratory, says the panel unanimously believes that critical gaps in information remain.
Previous discussions over the safety of Japan’s plans emphasized the chemistry of the discharge, but not how it could interact with marine life, he said.
“If the ocean were a sterile glass vessel, that would be one thing,” Richmond said. “But it’s not, you know, there’s lots of biology involved.”
Richmond has been particularly concerned about the potential for tritium – a key compound of concern – being absorbed into the food system because the radioactive isotope can bind to phytoplankton.
Through phytoplankton, Richmond says, the radioactive element could then find its way into the greater food system as the microscopic plants are consumed by mollusks and small fish, which are later consumed by other fish and eventually humans.
“Things like mercury in fish are now of an international concern. Radionuclides will be the same,” Richmond said.
The situation is dynamic too, as climate change affects the temperature of waters and weather patterns change.
“As temperatures go up, many chemicals become more interactive, they become a little bit different in terms of break down,” he said. “So these are all the things we need to consider.”
……………………………………. the information seen by the panel showed less than 1% of the tanks of wastewater had been treated and less than 20% had been adequately sampled, Richmond says.
Based on those numbers alone, we’re uncomfortable in making predictions of where things are going to end up,” Richmond said.
The Pacific Perspective
Community groups and environmental organizations were quick to respond to the news last year, raising concerns about the longterm effects to their region, with its legacy of nuclear testing and the fallout. And coastal communities and fishermen in Japan have also raised concerns.
The U.S. expressed its support for the plan in April last year, which has since been criticized by U.S. territories and affiliated states.
Rep. Sheila Babauta of the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands introduced a resolution to CNMI’s House of Representatives opposing any nuclear testing, storage or waste disposal in the Pacific.
It was passed in December, months after the U.S. stated its position and after other Pacific groups and governments condemned the move.
“I’m really disappointed in the lack of engagement, the lack of information and the lack of free, prior and informed consent,” Babauta, who chairs the Natural Resources Committee, said.
The mistrust that is harbored by many in the Pacific stems back to U.S nuclear testing in the Republic of Marshall Islands following World War II, British testing in Kiribati and the French in French Polynesia, which had flow-on effects to the environment and long term health of Pacific people. And in 1979, Japan provoked backlash when it revealed plans to dump 10,000 drums of nuclear waste in the Marianas Trench.
Babauta says she introduced the resolution as a show of solidarity for the rest of the Pacific.
“The ocean is our oldest ancestor. The ocean is our legacy,” Babauta said. “It’s what we’re going to leave for our children.” https://www.civilbeat.org/2022/04/scientists-japans-plan-to-dump-nuclear-waste-into-the-pacific-ocean-may-not-be-safe/
”Decommissioming” of UK’s dead nuclear reactors is likely to cost the tax-payer much more than planned for.
significant additional taxpayer support has been required, and more is likely to be necessary.
there is a risk that the taxpayer will have to make further
contributions.
A report from the UK’s National Audit Office examines whether the
government’s arrangements for decommissioning Britain’s fleet of
advanced-gas-cooled reactors offers value for money.
The UK has eight second generation nuclear power stations accounting for around 16% of total
UK electricity generation in 2020. Seven of the eight stations are Advanced
Gas-cooled Reactors (AGRs), the design of which built on that of the first
generation of now closed Magnox reactors.
Under current plans, all the AGR
stations will have stopped generating electricity by 2028. Decommissioning
is envisaged to take just over 100 years under current plans. The Nuclear
Liabilities Fund (the Fund) was established to meet the costs of
decommissioning all seven AGRs plus a pressurised water reactor at Sizewell
B, but significant additional taxpayer support has been required, and more
is likely to be necessary.
The UK government has provided a guarantee to
underwrite the Fund if its assets are insufficient to meet the total costs
of decommissioning. In 2020, government contributed £5.1 billion ($6.8bn)
to strengthen the Fund’s position and the Fund has recently requested a
further £5.6 billion. The Fund’s assets were valued at £14.8 billion at
the end of March 2021. The aim is that growth in the Fund’s investments
will be sufficient to meet the long-term costs of decommissioning
(currently £23.5 billion).
However, cost estimates have doubled in real
terms since 2004/5. If this trend is maintained and investment growth is
not sufficient, there is a risk that the taxpayer will have to make further
contributions. Last year, the government entered into new arrangements to
decommission the seven AGR nuclear power plants, making EDF Energy
responsible for defueling. The decommissioning of the AGR nuclear power
stations, a 66-page report published by the National Audit Office (NAO)
examines whether these arrangements will lead to better value for money.
The NAO scrutinises public spending to help Parliament hold government to
account and improve public services. It says that while the arrangements
could deliver savings, their success will ultimately depend on the relevant
parties working collaboratively to overcome risks.
Nuclear Engineering International 20th April 2022
https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featurearrangements-for-decommissioning-the-agrs-9640510/
UK’s Nuclear Free Local Authorities join in Wales’call to Japan not to dump radiactive wastewater at sea
The Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA) have joined with leading Welsh
anti-nuclear environmental campaign groups in writing to senior Japanese
Government ministers urging them not to dump radioactive waste from the
Fukushima disaster at sea.
Operated by the Tokyo Electric Power Company
(TEPCO), the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant was hit by an earthquake
and a tsunami on 11 March 2011. A disaster unfolded with three nuclear
meltdowns, three hydrogen explosions and a release of radiation from three
reactors, and Government authorities were forced to evacuate 154,000 people
from the surrounding area over a 20-mile radius. An average of 150 tons of
radioactive water was produced each day last year as rainwater and
groundwater flowed into the damaged reactor buildings mixing with seawater
which has been used to cool the melted nuclear fuel.
One million tons of this water is now stored in barrels on the site. Although the contaminated
water is treated it cannot remove deadly tritium, a beta-emitting
radioactive isotope of hydrogen, and other radioactive materials.
NFLA 21st April 2022
America’s nuclear waste dump in New Mexico is found to have serious safety issues.
The U.S. government´s nuclear waste repository in New Mexico has major
issues in fire training and firefighting vehicles, with its fleet in
disrepair after years of neglect, according to an investigation by the U.S.
Energy Department´s Office of Inspector General.
The investigation was
spurred by allegations regarding fire protection concerns at the
repository, which is the backbone of a multibillion-dollar effort to clean
up Cold War-era waste from past nuclear research and bomb making at
national laboratories and defense sites across the U.S.
Daily Mail 21st April 2022
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 (51)
- 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 