nuclear-news

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

Swedish environmental groups sound a warning on the government’s plans for a new radioactive waste dump.

On 22 December, the Government decided to approve the extension of the
repository for short-lived radioactive waste in Forsmark (SFR) with a new
repository (SFR 2).

SFR is the current repository for short-lived
radioactive operational waste from the nuclear power plants and is located
under the seabed outside the Forsmark nuclear power plant.

SFR 2 is a new repository for short-lived radioactive waste from the decommissioning of
the Swedish nuclear reactors, and the repository will be built next to the
old one. The government decided to grant permissibility according to the
Environmental Code and a license according to the Nuclear Activities Act.

The decisions can be found in the news story on the MKG Swedish web page
(link below on original)).

The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, The Swedish
Friends of the Earth and the Swedish NGO Office for Nuclear Waste Review
(MKG) have stated that the government should say no to the new repository.
The organisations recently told the government in an opinion that it has
not been shown that the new repository will be safe enough.

The environment risks being damaged by the repository leaking radioactive particles into
the Öregrundsgrepen outside Forsmark faster than expected, perhaps already
within 50 to 100 years after closure. In addition, there is already a
relatively unexpected and extensive breakdown of the technical repository
barriers in the existing repository.

The organisations believe that the
government should have conditioned the decision on leaving the repository
open under supervision for the 400 to 500 years required for the
radioactive content to have decayed to less dangerous levels.

 MKG 22nd Dec 2021

 https://www.mkg.se/en/the-government-approves-the-expansion-of-sfr-in-forsmark

December 24, 2021 Posted by | environment, Sweden, wastes | Leave a comment

In Cumbria – Dangerous Nuclear Waste Dumping- Mission Creep and Obfuscation.

Dangerous Nuclear Waste Dumping- Mission Creep and Obfuscation.

The following images [on original] are from a four page Advertorial by NIREX in Cumbria Life from 1993 (NIREX was the then government body on “Nuclear Waste Disposal.” ) The NIREX plan was for “deep disposal” of intermediate and some low level nuclear wastes. Now in 2021 the “vision” is to put the intermediate level nuclear wastes (previously earmarked for the NIREX dump at Longlands Farm, Gosforth) into Not So Deep Silos’ at the Low Level Waste Repository at Drigg and the even higher activity and very hot nuclear wastes (which even the gung ho NIREX never proposed putting deep underground) into a Geological Disposal Facility ( deep under the Irish Sea is in the frame)……….

Note that the NIREX advert from 1993 states that the Geological Disposal Facility plan is for “intermediate and some low level wastes.” In a newsletter in March this year for the Low Level Waste Repository at Drigg, it was said: “The NDA is exploring the benefits of developing Near Surface (NSD) – for disposing of a proportion of Intermediate Level Waste (ILW), but no decision has been taken on whether UK Government will pursue this option or whether LLWR, will in time, host a NSD facility.”

We asked a number of Freedom of Informations questions which have not been answered directly or honestly with a simple yes or no but serve to deflect and frustrate any scrutiny.

  • Have the public been consulted about the RWM/NDA/CoRWM plan for Near Surface Disposal of Intermediate Level Waste at Drigg’s Low Level Waste Repository?

The honest answer would be NO

  • Has the Borough or County Council held a debate or vote on whether to take any steps towards Near Surface Disposal of Intermediate Level Wastes by alllowing 16 rock characterisation boreholes to be drilled at a depth of 120m into the underlying sandstone ?

The honest answer would be NO

  • What are the category of low and intermediate level wastes proposed for NSD and would this include the category of wastes previously designated by NIREX for a GDF ?

The honest answer would be: the major components of Intermediate Level Wastes are nuclear reactor components, graphite from reactor cores and sludges from the treatment of radioactive liquid effluents. All of these wastes were previously designated by NIREX for a Geological Disposal Facility.

You can see Low Level Waste Repository’s answers here: ………..https://www.lakesagainstnucleardump.com/post/dangerous-nuclear-waste-dumping-mission-creep-and-obfuscation

December 24, 2021 Posted by | secrets,lies and civil liberties, UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Holtec gets approval to acquire and dismantle Palisades nuclear plant: not everyone is happy.


Holtec receives NRC approval to acquire Michigan nuclear plant

Jim Walsh, Cherry Hill Courier-Post 20 Dec 21,  CAMDEN – Holtec International has received an initial approval to acquire a nuclear power plant that it plans to decommission and dismantle.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said the Camden firm “met the regulatory, legal, technical and financial requirements” to obtain the license for the Palisades plant in Covert, Michigan.

The NRC similarly supported a license transfer for a second Michigan site, the Big Rock Point facility. The Hayes Township plant has already been decommissioned, with only a fuel storage facility remaining, according to the NRC…………

opponents of the license transfer will “seriously consider” a court appeal of the NRC’s “shocking” decision, said Terry Lodge, an attorney for a coalition of environmental groups.

“We have been denied our due process rights,” claimed Michael Keegan of Don’t Waste Michigan, who said the NRC had denied a hearing “on our very serious environmental, health, safety, and fiscal concerns.”

Among other points, the critics question whether the power plants’ decommissioning trust funds will cover needed expenses. They also assert Holtec is tapping the trust funds for unrelated costs. https://www.courierpostonline.com/story/news/2021/12/20/holtec-nrc-nuclear-power-plant-palisades-big-rock-point-michigan/8963723002/

December 21, 2021 Posted by | decommission reactor, USA | Leave a comment

USA has 85,000 metric tons of spent fuel from nuclear power plants, 90 million gallons of weapons wastes – robots to the rescue.

 There’s over 85,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from commercial
nuclear power plants, and 90 million gallons of waste from government
weapons programs in the U.S. today, according to the Government
Accountability Office.

That number is rapidly growing. Every year, we add
2,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel. Disposing and handling nuclear
waste is a dangerous task that requires precision and accuracy. Researchers
from the National Centre for Nuclear Robotics led by the Extreme Robotics
Lab at the University of Birmingham in the UK are finding ways to help
humans and robots work together to get the job done.

The researchers have
developed a system using a standard industrial robot that uses a parallel
jaw gripper to handle objects and an Ensenso N35 3D cameras to see the
world around it. The team’s system involves allowing humans to make more
complex decisions that AI isn’t equipped to do, while the robot
determines how to best perform the tasks. The team uses three kinds of
shared control.

 The Robot Report 18th Dec 2021

Researchers develop new approach for handling nuclear waste
Researchers develop new approach for handling nuclear waste

December 21, 2021 Posted by | technology, USA, wastes | Leave a comment

USA govt moves towards getting an interim storage for nuclear wastes

The feds have collected more than $44 billion for a permanent nuclear waste dump — here’s why we still don’t have one, CNBC, DEC 18 2021    KEY POINTS

  • The federal government has more than $44 billion collected from energy customers since the 1980s specifically to be spent on a permanent nuclear waste disposal in the United States.
  • Currently, nuclear waste is mostly stored in dry casks on the locations of current and former nuclear power plants around the country.
  • On Nov. 30, the Office of Nuclear Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy took a preliminary step towards establishing an interim repository for nuclear waste. Some see this as a reason for optimism, others as kicking the can down the road.

The federal government has a fund of $44.3 billion earmarked for spending on a permanent nuclear waste disposal facility in the United States.

It began collecting money from energy customers for the fund in the 1980s, and the money is now earning about $1.4 billion in interest each year.

But plans to build a site in Yucca Mountain, Nevada, were scuttled by state and federal politics, and there’s been a lack of political will to find other solutions. The result is that the U.S. does not have the infrastructure to dispose of radioactive nuclear waste in a deep geologic repository, where it can slowly lose its radioactivity over the course of thousands of years without causing harm………………………………………….

After 2014, the federal government was forced to stop collecting money for the Nuclear Waste Fund because of a legal ruling. Owners and operators of nuclear power plants had challenged Department of Energy’s collection of fees, arguing that ratepayers should not be paying into a fund when the United States had no viable options for where the used fuel permanent disposal should go.

Amid all the stops and starts, the money in the Nuclear Waste Fund has been put back into the general fund and is being used for other purposes, Frank Rusco of the Government Accountability Office says. To use the funds for their original purpose would require new authorization and appropriation by Congress, he said.

“This will potentially cause a difficulty in getting a repository built,” Rusco said.

Since the federal government has not established a permanent repository for its radioactive nuclear waste, it’s had to pay utility companies to store it themselves. Currently, nuclear waste is mostly stored in dry casks on the locations of current and former nuclear power plants around the country. So far, the system is working, and in 2014, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the lead oversight body for the industry, has said that current storage technology would be sufficient for 100 years……………………

As of Sept. 30, the government has paid $9 billion to utility companies for their interim storage costs and the Department of Energy’s Agency Finance Report estimates it will cost another $30.9 billion until a permanent waste disposal option is completed in the United States.

hat estimate could prove to be low, Rusco said.

However, the tide may be turning back toward finding longer-term solutions.

On Nov. 30, the Office of Nuclear Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy put out a formal “request for information” for a temporary, but consolidated, nuclear waste storage in the U.S.

Unlike a permanent storage facility, which involves digging deep into the ground, a temporary facility would simply keep all the dry casks together in one place, as opposed to distributed around the country. In some cases, the local nuclear plants have been completely disassembled — but the waste is still stored on site. Consolidating it would at least save on costs.

December 20, 2021 Posted by | USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Heysham 2 nuclear power station to close earlier than planned

Heysham 2 nuclear power station will continue generating electricity
safely until 2028, however, “closing” two years earlier than originally
planned. In 2016, the sites’ operational lives were extended by seven
years to 2030. Operational dates are under constant review and since then
inspection, modelling and operational experience from other sites, have
given EDF a clearer picture of lifetime expectations for the AGR fleet as
the stations age. Heysham 1 will operate until 2024,

 Lancaster Guardian 17th Dec 2021

https://www.lancasterguardian.co.uk/business/heysham-2-nuclear-power-station-will-continue-generating-electricity-until-2028-3496867ac1

December 20, 2021 Posted by | decommission reactor, UK | Leave a comment

Residents on Taiwan’s Orchid Island hope that the nuclear waste storage facility will now be closed

For decades, Taiwan has been storing barrels of radioactive waste on
Orchid Island, home to some 5,000 — mostly Indigenous people. DW’s Joyce
Lee met residents who hope that the facility will be finally closed after
all those years.

 Deutsche Welle 16th Dec 2021

https://www.dw.com/en/living-next-to-taiwans-nuclear-dump-site/av-60154113

December 18, 2021 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, Taiwan, wastes | Leave a comment

Sweden’s Non Government Organisations want the government to reject nuclear repositary plans, on safety grounds

 The new Minister of Climate and Environment Annika Strandhäll at a press
conference on December 8 presented a timetable for a decision on the
planned repository for spent nuclear fuel in Forsmark, and a decision on
the extension of the current repository for short-lived radioactive waste
(SFR 2).

The nuclear fuel repository decision will be taken on January 27,
2022, and the SFR 2 decision already on December 22. The Swedish Society
for Nature Conservation, the Swedish Friends of the Earth and the Swedish
NGO Office for Nuclear Waste Review (MKG) want the government to say no to
both repositories.

The organisations are of the opinion that it has still
not been shown that the spent nuclear fuel repository is safe enough and
believe that the LOT experiment can, if necessary, be used to develop more
knowledge about copper as a canister material before a decision is made.

If the government intends to say yes to the start of construction repository,
the decision should follow the Swedish Council for Nuclear Waste’s proposal
to condition an approval to more research and that a separate decision
under the Environmental Code be given separately to start operation when
that time.

 MKG 8th Dec 2021

https://www.mkg.se/en/the-new-minister-of-the-environment-presents-a-timetable-for-decisions-on-the-spent-nuclear-fuel

December 18, 2021 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, safety, Sweden, wastes | Leave a comment

U.S. government struggles with the ever-accumulating nuclear waste problem

Government launches push that may remove Maine Yankee’s nuclear waste from Wiscasset

The U.S. Department of Energy wants to know whether communities would be willing to store nuclear waste temporarily while the government finds a permanent solution.

BY KATHLEEN O’BRIEN, TIMES RECORD, 2 Dec 21,    The federal government has taken the first step in an effort to move the nation’s spent nuclear fuel, like the 542 metric tons of nuclear waste at the long-decommissioned Maine Yankee facility in Wiscasset, but a Maine Yankee official said that waste likely isn’t going anywhere any time soon.

On Nov. 30, the U.S. Department of Energy released a request for information on a consent-based effort to move the nation’s spent nuclear fuel to other communities willing to hold onto it until the government finds a permanent storage solution for the waste. The DOE is collecting feedback from stakeholders on the effort until March 4, 2022, at 5 p.m

This action is considered long overdue because the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 required the federal government to remove the radioactive waste from sites including Maine Yankee by 1998, but that commitment was never fulfilled.

Maine Yankee operated from 1972 to 1996 when the company’s board voted to cease operations rather than invest in fixing expensive safety-related problems to keep the plant running. The plant was fully decommissioned in 2005. Since then, the nuclear waste has sat there, waiting for the government to remove it.

Maine Yankee’s spent nuclear fuel is housed in 64 dry storage casks, which stand on 16 3-foot-thick concrete pads. Each concrete cask is comprised of a 2.5-inch-thick steel liner surrounded by 28 inches of reinforced concrete. The site takes up 820-acres on Wiscasset’s Bailey Point.

Maine Yankee Public and Government Affairs Director Eric Howes said moving the nuclear waste elsewhere will be a years-long process, but this movement is, “a positive development, but much more needs to be done to resolve the spent nuclear fuel issue.”

…….. “It’s going to be difficult to get a community willing to be an interim storage facility because what does interim mean?” Howes said. “What’s meant by interim when, at this point, there is no plan for a permanent geologic repository?”………..

Kathryn Huff, principal deputy assistant secretary for nuclear energy at the Department of Energy, said the department recognizes it needs to take responsibility for the 86,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel in sites across the country.

……….  Huff said it needs to be removed because “the communities that have that spent nuclear fuel never agreed to host the material long-term.”

“We cannot continue to defer the problem for future generations to figure out,” Huff said during a public information session Tuesday. “Inaction on this issue has already cost U.S. taxpayers nearly $9 million on settlements and judgements.”…………

Howes says it costs Maine Yankee roughly $10 million annually to store the nuclear waste safely while waiting for the government to remove it. He said the company pays to store it with funds won in lawsuits against the DOE.

Maine Yankee and its two sister sites, Connecticut Yankee and Yankee Rowe in Mass., have collectively won about $575.5 million in lawsuits and is now in its fifth round of litigation with the department. The money the government concedes in those lawsuits, however, comes from The Judgement Fund, which is funded by U.S. taxpayers………… https://www.pressherald.com/2021/12/12/government-launches-push-that-may-remove-maine-yankees-nuclear-waste-from-wiscasset/

December 13, 2021 Posted by | USA, wastes | Leave a comment

 Radionuclides found from Hinkley nuclear mud Bristol Channel Citizens Radiation Survey .

 

 Radionuclides found…! Bristol Channel Citizens Radiation Survey, Tim Deere-Jones, Stop Hinkley C. A new survey has concluded the spread of man-made radioactivity from reactor discharges into the Bristol Channel is far more extensive and widespread than previously reported.

The research has also detected a high concentration of radioactivity in Splott Bay, which could be linked to the controversial dumping of dredged waste off the Cardiff coast in 2018.The survey was undertaken over the summer by groups from both sides of the Bristol Channel after EDF Energy refused to carry
out pre-dumping surveys of the Cardiff Grounds and Portishead sea dump sites where they have disposed of waste from the construction of the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant.

The survey found that shoreline concentrations of two radio nuclides (Caesium 137 and Americium 241)
typical of the effluents from the Hinkley reactors and indicators of the presence of Plutonium 239/240 and 241, do not decline significantly with distance from the Hinkley site as Government and Industry surveys had previously reportedOverall, the study found significant concentrations of Hinkley derived radioactivity in samples from all 11 sites, seven along the Somerset coast and four in south Wales and found unexpectedly high concentrations in sediments from Bristol Docks, the tidal River Avon, the
Portishead shoreline, Burnham-on-Sea and Woodspring Bay.

 Public Enquiry 11th Dec 2021

Research finds ‘significant concentrations’ of radioactivity in
samples taken from across the Somerset and south Wales coast. Nation Cymru 9th Dec 2021

December 13, 2021 Posted by | oceans, radiation, Reference, UK, wastes | Leave a comment

UK’s Hinkley B nuclear power station to shut down permanently next summer.

Hinkley Point B to start final run of producing electricity before
shutting down next summer. Hinkley Point B is about to start its final run
of producing electricity before it shuts down for good next summer. The
nuclear power station on the West Somerset coastline has been operating for
over 45 years and it’s expected that many members of staff will stay on to
help with de-fuelling and decommissioning.

 ITV 11th Dec 2021

https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2021-12-11/hinkley-point-b-power-station-to-start-final-run-before-shutting-down

December 13, 2021 Posted by | decommission reactor, UK | 2 Comments

Hunterston and Continuous Decommissioning 

 nuClear News No136 Dec 21,  Hunterston and Continuous Decommissioning    The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority’s 2021-24 Business Plan (1) says it has reviewed the Magnox reactor decommissioning strategy and endorsed a site-specific approach to Magnox reactor decommissioning which will involve a mix of decommissioning strategies. For some sites this will result in their decommissioning being brought forward whilst for others a deferral strategy will be the chosen approach. New Site-Specific Strategies will be developed for each Magnox station across Britain. These will support optimal sequencing of reactor dismantling – a rolling programme of decommissioning which will maximise the opportunity for sharing any lessons learned, developing and implementing new technologies and strengthening wider capability. 
These new site-specific decommissioning strategies are currently being defined. A timetable will be set that best suits each site and a business case developed to set out the benefits and cost and schedule impacts of any changes.  

  Reactor dismantling at the Hunterston A Magnox station, which ceased generation in 1990, is now expected to start in 2035. The previous strategy was to place the reactors into care and maintenance for up to 85 years to allow for radioactivity to decay. The current work programme which involves packaging various waste, sludges etc and placing the packages into an Intermediate Level Waste store will now take until 2030, 40 years after it ceased operation. The plant opened in 1964, so by 2030 Hunterston A will have spent longer being cleaned up than it actually spent generating electricity. Originally the current work programme was expected to be completed by 2022, but problems associated with retrieving waste in 5 bunkers has caused delays. The period between 2030 and 2035 will be spent demolishing various buildings.

 Under the old strategy the NDA was going to install a “weather envelope” around the old Magnox reactors. Work on this has now been suspended. 

  Hunterston B Meanwhile, Hunterston B – Reactor 3 switched off for final time on 26th November. The reactor was first switched on on 6th February 1976. When EDF acquired the power station it was expected to end generation in 2016. (2) Hunterston B Reactor 4 – is scheduled to shut down in January, which will see the end of power generation for the site in North Ayrshire, Scotland. (3)

 Reactor 3 and Reactor 4 were taken offline on 9 March and 3 October 2018, respectively, after cracks in their graphite cores were discovered during routine inspections. In August 2020, the UK’s Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) gave approval to EDF to restart Reactor 4 in August 2020 and Reactor 3 the following month. The reactors were taken offline earlier this year for further inspections of their graphite cores. In April, the ONR gave permission for the units to be    switched back on. However, it said continued operation would be for up to a total of 16.7 terawatt days for Reactor 3 and 16.52 terawatt days for Reactor 4 – about six months of operation for each reactor. Reactor 3 returned to service on 23 April and Reactor 4 on 5 June.


 In June, the UK government and EDF agreed on improved arrangements to decommission the UK’s seven AGR nuclear plants that are scheduled to close this decade. This followed an announcement by EDF that it had decided not to restart the first of the AGRs, Dungeness B, and to begin defuelling with immediate effect. (4) Each of the AGR sites will move across to the NDA on a rolling basis once defueling and fuel free verification are complete, for the decommissioning work to be overseen and managed by the NDA’s Magnox division. However, EDF’s defueling work will be supported by the NDA divisions Sellafield Ltd and Nuclear Transport Solutions (NTS) alongside other parts of the NDA group. Spent fuel from Hunterston B will be sent by train to Sellafield. (5)

 EDF has now submitted a defueling safety case to ONR. First there will be what’s called “defueling outage” which will last about 60 days – making sure everything is safe to commence defueling. Defueling is then expected to start in March 2022 and will take around 3 years.
 After defueling the NDA will take control of the AGR reactors. Under the old regime it would have taken until about 2030 to prepare the reactors for a period of care and maintenance. Now Hunterston B will develop a site-specific decommissioning strategy which should involve reactor dismantling sooner rather than later, thus providing the prospect of more continuous employment on the site.


 The NDA, EDF and Magnox have been working together to investigate the feasibility of Hunterston B sharing the use of the Hunterston A Intermediate Level Waste (ILW) store and processing facility. Seems obvious that they should, but EDF has recently been working on plans for a standalone store. EDF and NDA have now agreed to share the Hunterston A store and EDF has suspended work on a Hunterston B store. ONR & SEPA still need to be consulted and a planning application made to North Ayrshire Council (NAC). (6)  https://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/nuClearNewsNo136.pdf

 

December 11, 2021 Posted by | decommission reactor, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear fusion – not as clean as they say: it produces considerable amounts of radioactive trash

NuClear News No 136 Dec 21, Fusion Waste The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) has published a preliminary position on the implications for decommissioning, radioactive waste management, and radioactive waste disposal associated with fusion energy. (1) CoRWM member Claire Corkhill says: “Although nuclear fusion does not produce long lived fission products and actinides, neutron capture by the fusion reactor structural materials and components forms short, moderate and some long-lived activation products. In addition to tritium emissions and contaminated materials, it is clear that there will be a need to manage radioactive materials and wastes produced by neutron activation, within regulatory controls, over the whole life cycle of a fusion reactor.” (2)  

The paper itself says: “The activation of components in a fusion reactor is low enough for the materials to be recycled or reused within 100 years.”

 It continues: 

“Minimising the generation of long lived activation products, and tritium inventory at source, is therefore of fundamental importance in achieving the primary objective in the waste hierarchy of waste prevention. However, it is to be recognised that future generations will be committed to managing wastes arising from decommissioning and waste management plans that are predicated on extended decay storage, such as those discussed herein.”  

  However, the paper goes on to says that “The primary components of the fusion reactor system are likely to require disposal, including the activated front wall, blanket, divertor and vacuum vessel materials … From a radiological perspective, it is reasonable to consider that, conceptually, wastes from a nuclear fusion power programme should be compatible with geological disposal, however, they may prove challenging for disposal in a near surface facility, given the long half-life and potential mobility of 14C and 94Nb.”
 “…some key activation products of concern, such as 14C and 94Nb, which are long lived, should be limited in near surface disposal facilities, given the reliance on engineered barriers to assure containment.14C poses a particular challenge given its potential mobility in the near subsurface.  

 “Nuclear fusion technology is advocated as not being compromised by the burden of generating long lived nuclear wastes. It is evident that this claim is challenged by the expected generation of some significant volumes of LLW and likely ILW arisings. It may be noted that the recent call for expressions of interest to accommodate siting the STEP facility makes no mention of management of the arising radioactive waste. Future dialogue with local communities needs to ensure it is as open and transparent as possible on such matters.” 


The Government is consulting on proposals for a regulatory framework for fusion. The consultation closes on 24th h December. See: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_da ta/file/1032848/towards-fusion-energy-uk-government-proposals-regulatory-frameworkhttps://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/nuClearNewsNo136.pdf

December 11, 2021 Posted by | technology, UK, wastes | Leave a comment

9 top US nuclear no-proliferation experts write to Prime Minister Trudeau requesting a review of Canada’s planned nuclear reprocessing to recover plutonium.

 The latest of three open letters to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau from US non-proliferation. experts is copied below [on original] . The previous two letters are linked in footnotes #1 and #2. [on original]

In these three letters, a group of nine distinguished nuclear policy experts are asking for a top level Canadian government review of the nuclear weapons proliferation dangers associated
with the planned reprocessing of Canadian used nuclear fuel to recover the plutonium for use in a proposed new reactor in New Brunswick.

These nine experts have worked under six U.S. presidents: John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama; and hold professorships at the Harvard Kennedy School, University of Maryland, Georgetown University, University of Texas at Austin, George Washington University, and Princeton University.

 CCNR 30th Nov 2021

 http://www.ccnr.org/request_plute_nov_24_2021.pdf

December 2, 2021 Posted by | - plutonium, Canada, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Protest against plan for nuclear waste dump in West Cumbria, close to National Park

NEW NUCLEAR DUMP FOR HIGHER ACTIVITY WASTES AT DRIGG LOW LEVEL WASTE REPOSITORY? NIREX REBRANDED?  From Lakes Against Nuclear Dump to the Lake District National Park Authority. 28 Nov 21, A letter of alarm regarding plans for an Intermediate Level Nuclear Waste Dump for the UK’s Low Level Waste Repository at the village of Drigg. The UKs LLWR is 250 metres from the National Park Boundary at the nearest point. The following letter has been sent to local and national media and mainstream NGOs have been alerted.

Dear Member of the Lake District National Park Authority,

Congratulations on the 70th anniversary of the Lake District National Park. In the original Lake Counties is another 70th anniversary. The Windscale Piles. Which from 1951 produced plutonium for Britain to make its own atomic and hydrogen bombs until the Windscale Fire of 1957. Unfortunately lessons were not learnt. The nuclear experiment continues despite no final solution to the problem of what to do with the escalating wastes from 70 years of military and civil nuclear reactors. Our own view as a nuclear safety group is that the wastes should not be buried out of sight and out of mind but should be closely monitored and repackaged when necessary.

NIREX REBORN AT DRIGG? – Intermediate Level Nuclear Wastes for Burial approximately 250 metres from the National Park?

We have been alerted by locals in the Drigg area to a plan which is running in tandem with that for a deep Geological Disposal Facility which Government say: “will be available to receive the first waste in the 2040s” However the plan for Near Surface Disposal (10s of metres below ground) “could be available within the next 10 years.” This plan, for which the Low Level Radioactive Waste Repository at Drigg is under active consideration, is for the disposal/dumping of Intermediate Level Wastes of the type that were rejected by the NIREX inquiry for deep GDF disposal at Longlands Farm, Gosforth in 1997. Exploratory boreholes have already been drilled at Drigg for the Near Surface Disposal of Intermediate Level Nuclear Wastes, presumably under “permitted development.”

Just like the early days of the Windscale Piles this plan has been put in motion under the radar of public attention. There has not been any debate or vote at Local, Borough or County Council level nor, we assume, any discussion by the Lake District National Park despite the Low Level Waste Repository being only 250 metres from the Lake District National Park boundary. Intermediate Level Nuclear Wastes, according to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, “exceeds the upper boundaries for Low Level Waste but does not generate a significant amount of heat. ..The major components of ILW are nuclear reactor components, graphite from reactor cores and sludges from the treatment of radioactive liquid effluents.”

The NIREX dump entrance proposal for Intermediate Level Wastes was rejected in the 1990s because the nuclear industry had no idea how much and how fast the planned dump would leak. They still have no idea. Furthermore for a shallow dump the leaks would be even faster…………

The fundamental conclusion of the expert Assessor and myself was that the Proposed Repository Zone had been chosen for these studies in an arbitrary manner, without conforming to internationally agreed, geological criteria

Earlier in a letter to “The Guardian” of June 28,’07 the NIREX Inquiry Inspector had stated : “The relevant geology in west Cumbria is apparently now claimed to be ‘stable, although imperfect’.…the imperfection consists of simply failing to meet the internationally agreed criteria on the suitability of rocks for nuclear waste deposit. The site should be in a region of low groundwater flow, and the geology should be readily characterisable and predictable, whereas the rocks there are actually of a complex volcanic nature, with significant faulting. Also, the industry was relying on an overlying layer of sedimentary strata to dilute and disperse any groundwater leakage, when the international criteria require such a layer to act instead as a barrier…The site is not suitable and investigations should be moved elsewhere…”.

And: “The site selection process was flawed, not treating safety as the most important factor, and irrationally affected by a strong desire to locate close to Sellafield.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/jun/28/nuclear.uk

The latest process to deliver a GDF (with Cumbria STILL in the frame), Radioactive Waste Management, is now in partnership with the LLWR at Drigg. These bodies along with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority are all advised by the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management which is in turn taking “invaluable” advice on construction and delivery of deep (GDF) and not so deep (NSD) dumping/disposal from West Cumbria Mining’s CEO Mark Kirkbride. Kirkbride compiled CoRWMs Annual Report No 3724 which details the push for Near Surface Disposal: “advice in the last year have been in relation to the concept of Near Surface Disposal (NSD) for intermediate level waste which is being explored by NDA as a potential solution for the disposal of specific intermediate level waste materials, reducing the volume of certain elements of the inventory into a GDF.

The Lake District National Park Authority surely cannot ignore this. If Intermediate and heat generating High Level nuclear waste is brushed under the Lake District fringes and abandoned, then the World’s Nuclear Heritage Site will soon become the World’s Nuclear Sacrifice Zone. This could happen within a decade for the Intermediate Level Wastes at Drigg. Please protect the Lake District and its fringes, tomorrow is too late to say “This Far and No Further.”

yours sincerely

Marianne Birkby

Lakes Against Nuclear Dump – a Radiation Free Lakeland campaign

https://www.lakesagainstnucleardump.com/ https://www.lakesagainstnucleardump.com/post/new-nuclear-dump-for-higher-activity-wastes-at-drigg-low-level-waste-repository-nirex-rebranded

November 29, 2021 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, UK, wastes | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »