The UK and Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA)and other organisations dismayed at approval for dumping Hinkley radioactive mud into coastal waters
The UK and Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA) and the
campaigning group Geiger Bay express their deep dismay on the decision over
the weekend by the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) to allow EDF Energy
to dredge mud and sediment from the cleared Hinkley Point C site into a
coastal site close to the North Somerset town of Portishead. (1)
That this controversial decision was issued unusually over a weekend in the middle of
the holiday season, and from initial reading, appears to be a rushed
response after previous delay, adds to that dismay. The NFLA and other
groups raised significant concerns in our submission to the MMO urging them
not to approve this application. Our concerns, like that of local councils
and a wide range of environmental and community groups, appear to have been
simply ignored. Campaigning groups and other environmental groups are now
seeking legal advice on the decision document.
NFLA 3rd Aug 2021
Campaigners dismayed as application to dump Hinkley Point mud in the Bristol Channel is approved.
| Campaigners dismayed as application to dump Hinkley Point mud in the Bristol Channel is approved. Anti-nuclear campaigners have expressed ‘deep dismay’ following confirmation that the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) has approved EDF Energy’s application to dump mud and sediment from the construction of the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station into a coastal site close to the north Somerset town of Portishead. “The MMO document endangers health all around the estuary, including the coast of south Wales, as the Welsh Government Davidson Committee’s independent report makes it clear that material dumped at Portishead travels anticlockwise round the estuary,” Geiger Bay spokesperson Richard Bramhall said. “This includes a long-term threat from inhalable particles of uranium and plutonium. We are facing a culture of deliberate ignorance. Future generations will pay the price.” Nation Cymru 3rd Aug 2021 https://nation.cymru/news/campaigners-dismayed-as-application-to-dump-hinkley-point-mud-in-the-bristol-channel-is-approved/ |
Housing market affected in Lincolnshire, as villagers react against UK government plans for a nuclear waste dump.
A Lincolnshire estate agent has warned that plans for a radioactive waste
storage facility in Theddlethorpe are causing people to reconsider buying
houses in the area, and has urged for the proposals to be scrapped.
News of the plans came in late July, when Radioactive Waste Management (RWM)
confirmed it was in “early discussions” with Lincolnshire County
Council about using the former ConocoPhillips Gas Terminal as a nuclear
waste underground disposal facility.
RWM has promised to start a conversation with the community about the proposals, in order to hear and
understand people’s views on the matter, and LCC has stressed that no
decision will be made without public backing.
The Theddlethorpe community
organised a campaign meeting in opposition to the radioactive waste storage
plans, with around 100 people gathering at Mablethorpe Sherwood Playing
Fields to protest it.
Lincolnite 3rd Aug 2021
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to give OK for spent nuclear fuel storage in Texas
U.S. NRC staff gives environmental OK to proposed $2.3B spent fuel storage site in Texas Power Engineering 2 Aug 21, The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is recommending granting a proposed license for a planned spent nuclear fuel interim storage facility in west Texas.
The NRC issued its final environmental impact statement on the application by Interim Storage Partners LLC, which is a joint venture of Waste Control Specialists LLC and Orano CIS. If granted, the owners would construct a facility to store from 5,000 (in the beginning) to 44,000 short tons of spent commercial nuclear fuel and a small quantity of spent mixed oxide fuel for about 40 years.
U.S. Department of Energy statistics indicate that the U.S. commercial nuclear power industry generates about 2,000 metric tons of used uranium fuel per year. Once spent and removed from the reactor, used fuel roads are currently stored at close to 75 sites in 34 states, according to the DOE.
The proposed interim site would be in Andrews County, Texas less than a mile from the New Mexico border. The owners would build and operate the project within a 14,000-acre parcel of land accessible by rail and road……..
The original plan is to store 5,000 short tons with subsequent expansion eventually bringing the total to close to 44,000 tons, equal to about 20 years of operation by the entire U.S. nuclear power generation fleet, according to reports………. https://www.power-eng.com/nuclear/waste-management-decommissioning/u-s-nuclear-regulators-give-environmental-ok-to-proposed-2-3b-spent-fuel-storage-site-in-texas/
English and Welsh concerns – call on Marine management leaders to postpone the dumping of Hinkley radioactive mud in te British Channel
EDF has this week rejected concerns about radioactivity from its dredging in the Bristol Channel around Hinkley Point power station near Burnham-On-Sea. A coalition of concerned Bristol Channel researchers and
campaigners says they have undertaken a pre-dredging radioactivity survey near Hinkley Point because “EDF, who want to dump radioactivity in the Bristol Channel, refuse to do it.”
The coalition, representing interests from both Welsh and English communities along the Bristol Channel/Severn estuary coasts, has appealed to the CEOs of the Marine Management Organisation and Natural Resources Wales (who must both adjudicate on EDF’s application to dredge) and the Westminster and Welsh Governments, who oversee those two agencies, to postpone any dumping decision until the survey results are published. The coalition has also formally requested a Public Inquiry to discuss the issues.
Burnham-on-sea.com 30th July 2021
https://www.burnham-on-sea.com/news/edf-rejects-radioactivity-concerns-over-hinkley-point-dredging/
Britain’s secret shortlist of areas earmarked for the dumping of nuclear waste
Southend-on-Sea, Essex, is the county’s most populous area, with more people living in the borough than anywhere else, but it’s a different story when you go to one of its most easterly points. Once you pass Shoeburyness, the area becomes almost entirely uninhabited. A series of islands, including Foulness Island and Wallasea Island, are situated here. They’re mostly marshy, boggy areas, but a few people still live there. A number of these islands are or have been owned by the government’s Ministry of Defence, who use this area for a variety of purposes, including as a shooting range. One of these islands is Potton Island. This island is mostly uninhabited, separated from the mainland by a thin creek only navigable via a small bridge which leads to the village of Great Wakering. In the 1800s, it was used as farmland until a major flood left the island abandoned. It was restored in the 1940s, and fell under the control of the Ministry of Defence in the 1950s before being turned back into a space for pasture and farmland. Documents released in 2005, after decades of secrecy, outlined areas the British government had earmarked for dumping nuclear waste in the 1980s and 1990s. Whilst any dumping would have been done in managed and safe ways, it’s still concerning to know that areas across Britain were being earmarked as graves for radioactive waste. Waste could have potentially been buried on Potton Island, and pedestrian access onto it possibly restricted completely. Southend Borough Council reportedly had no idea that Potton Island was on the government’s list of potential dumping locations, and were shocked when they found out it was on the shortlist. Essex Live 31st July 2021 https://www.essexlive.news/whats-on/classified-plans-use-essex-island-5713965 |
Algeria: deep resentment of French colonialism and the effects of nuclear bombing -still very real today.
In Algeria, France’s 1960s nuclear tests still taint ties, https://www.france24.com/en/africa/20210729-in-algeria-france-s-1960s-nuclear-tests-still-taint-ties More than 60 years since France started its nuclear tests in Algeria, their legacy continues to poison relations between the North African nation and its former colonial ruler.The issue has come to the fore again after President Emmanuel Macron said in French Polynesia on Tuesday that Paris owed “a debt” to the South Pacific territory over atomic tests there between 1966 and 1996.
The damage the mega-blasts did to people and nature in the former colonies remains a source of deep resentment, seen as proof of discriminatory colonial attitudes and disregard for local lives.
Diseases related to radioactivity are passed on as an inheritance, generation after generation,” said Abderahmane Toumi, head of the Algerian victims’ support group El Gheith El Kadem.
“As long as the region is polluted, the danger will persist,” he said, citing severe health impacts from birth defects and cancers to miscarriages and sterility.
France carried out its first successful atomic bomb test deep in the Algerian Sahara in 1960, making it the world’s fourth nuclear power after the United States, the Soviet Union and Britain.
Today, as Algeria and France struggle to deal with their painful shared history, the identification and decontamination of radioactive sites remains one of the main disputes.
In his landmark report on French colonial rule and the 1954-62 Algerian War, historian Benjamin Stora recommended continued joint work that looks into “the locations of nuclear tests in Algeria and their consequences”.
France in the 1960s had a policy of burying all radioactive waste from the Algerian bomb tests in the desert sands, and for decades declined to reveal their locations.
‘Radioactive fallout’
Algeria’s former veterans affairs minister Tayeb Zitouni recently accused France of refusing to release topographical maps that would identify “burial sites of polluting, radioactive or chemical waste not discovered to date”.”The French side has not technically conducted any initiative to clean up the sites, and France has not undertaken any humanitarian act to compensate the victims,” said Zitouni. According to the Ministry of the Armed Forces in Paris, Algeria and France now “deal with the whole subject at the highest level of state”.
“France has provided the Algerian authorities with the maps it has,” said the ministry.
Between 1960 and 1966, France conducted 17 atmospheric or underground nuclear tests near the town of Reggane, 1,200 kilometres (750 miles) from the capital Algiers, and in mountain tunnels at a site then called In Ekker.
Eleven of them were conducted after the 1962 Evian Accords, which granted Algeria independence but included an article allowing France to use the sites until 1967.
A radioactive cloud from a 1962 test sickened at least 30,000 Algerians, the country’s official APS news agency estimated in 2012.
French documents declassified in 2013 revealed significant radioactive fallout from West Africa to southern Europe. Algeria last month set up a national agency for the rehabilitation of former French nuclear test sites.
In April, Algeria’s army chief of staff, General Said Chengriha, asked his then French counterpart, General Francois Lecointre, for his support, including access to all the maps.
We respect our dead’Receiving the maps is “a right that the Algerian state strongly demands, without forgetting the question of compensation for the Algerian victims of the tests,” stressed a senior army officer, General Bouzid Boufrioua, writing in the defence ministry magazine El Djeich.”France must assume its historical responsibilities,” he argued.President Abdelmadjid Tebboune, however, ruled out any demands for compensation, telling Le Point weekly that “we respect our dead so much that financial compensation would be a belittlement. We are not a begging people.”France passed a law in 2010 which provided for a compensation procedure for “people suffering from illnesses resulting from exposure to radiation from nuclear tests carried out in the Algerian Sahara and in Polynesia between 1960 and 1998”.
But out of 50 Algerians who have since launched claims, only one, a soldier from Algiers who was stationed at one of the sites, “has been able to obtain compensation”, says the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).
No resident of the remote desert region has been compensated, it said.
In a study released a year ago, “Radioactivity Under the Sand”, ICAN France urged Paris to hand Algeria a complete list of the burial sites and to facilitate their clean-up.
The 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons obliges states to provide adequate assistance to individuals affected by the use or testing of nuclear weapons.
It was signed by 122 UN member states, but by none of the nuclear powers. France argued the treaty was”incompatible with a realistic and progressive approach to nuclear disarmament”.
ICAN France in its study argued that “people have been waiting for more than 50 years. There is a need to go faster.
“We are still facing an important health and environmental problem that must be addressed as soon as possible.”
Over 1.5k people sign petition against nuclear waste storage in Lincolnshire, UK
Over 1,500 people have signed a petition to say no to plans to store
nuclear waste underground on the Lincolnshire coast. Plans emerged to
dispose of nuclear waste at a site near Mablethorpe this week, as
Radioactive Waste Management (RWM) said it was in “early discussions”
with Lincolnshire County Council about using the former ConocoPhillips Gas
Terminal in Theddlethorpe as a Geological Disposal Facility, but that no
decisions had been made.
Lincolnshire County Council Leader Martin Hill
claimed it was only 10 days ago they had a presentation from the firm, and
that it was the first time they’d had a meeting with them. He also said a
“binding” local referendum would be held and “if it’s a no,
that’s the end of it”, according to the BBC.
Lincolnite 29th July 2021
More underground space is needed at Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP)
More underground space is needed to complete the mission at the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant to dispose of nuclear waste, contend WIPP officials
during a Monday public meeting. The U.S. Department of Energy was underway
with a permit modification request (PMR) that would amend the DOE’s
permit with the State of New Mexico to allow for the mining of two new
panels where waste would be disposed of along with drifts connecting the
panels to the rest of the underground repository. At WIPP, transuranic
(TRU) nuclear waste consisting of clothing items and equipment irradiated
during nuclear activities at DOE sites across the country is disposed of
via burying in an underground salt deposit.
Carlsbad Current Argus 27th July 2021
Moltex Energy’s nuclear pyroprocessing project with plutonium would produce weapons grade material and encourage weapons proliferation
Will Canada remain a credible nonproliferation partner? https://thebulletin.org/2021/07/will-canada-remain-a-credible-nonproliferation-partner/
By Susan O’Donnell, Gordon Edwards | July 26, 2021
Susan O’Donnell Susan O’Donnell is a researcher specializing in technology adoption and environmental issues at the University of New Brunswick.
Gordon Edwards Gordon Edwards is a mathematician, physicist, nuclear consultant, and president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility,
The recent effort to persuade Canada to sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons has stimulated a lively debate in the public sphere. At the same time, out of the spotlight, the start-up company Moltex Energy received a federal grant to develop a nuclear project in New Brunswick that experts say will undermine Canada’s credibility as a nonproliferation partner.
Moltex wants to extract plutonium from the thousands of used nuclear fuel bundles currently stored as “high-level radioactive waste” at the Point Lepreau reactor site on the Bay of Fundy. The idea is to use the plutonium as fuel for a new nuclear reactor, still in the design stage. If the project is successful, the entire package could be replicated and sold to other countries if the Government of Canada approves the sale.
The recent effort to persuade Canada to sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons has stimulated a lively debate in the public sphere. At the same time, out of the spotlight, the start-up company Moltex Energy received a federal grant to develop a nuclear project in New Brunswick that experts say will undermine Canada’s credibility as a nonproliferation partner.
Moltex wants to extract plutonium from the thousands of used nuclear fuel bundles currently stored as “high-level radioactive waste” at the Point Lepreau reactor site on the Bay of Fundy. The idea is to use the plutonium as fuel for a new nuclear reactor, still in the design stage. If the project is successful, the entire package could be replicated and sold to other countries if the Government of Canada approves the sale.
On May 25, nine US nonproliferation experts sent an open letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau expressing concern that by “backing spent-fuel reprocessing and plutonium extraction, the Government of Canada will undermine the global nuclear weapons non-proliferation regime that Canada has done so much to strengthen.”
The nine signatories to the letter include senior White House appointees and other US government advisers who worked under six US presidents: John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama; and who hold professorships at the Harvard Kennedy School, University of Maryland, Georgetown University, University of Texas at Austin, George Washington University, and Princeton University.
Plutonium is a human-made element created as a byproduct in every nuclear reactor. It’s a “Jekyll and Hyde” kind of material: on the one hand, it is the stuff that nuclear weapons are made from. On the other hand, it can be used as a nuclear fuel. The crucial question is, can you have one without the other?
India exploded its first nuclear weapon in 1974 using plutonium extracted from a “peaceful” Canadian nuclear reactor given as a gift many years earlier. In the months afterwards, it was discovered that South Korea, Pakistan, Taiwan, and Argentina—all of them customers of Canadian nuclear technology—were well on the way to replicating India’s achievement. Swift action by the US and its allies prevented these countries from acquiring the necessary plutonium extraction facilities (called “reprocessing plants”). To this day, South Korea is not allowed to extract plutonium from used nuclear fuel on its own territory—a long-lasting political legacy of the 1974 Indian explosion and its aftermath—due to proliferation concerns.
Several years after the Indian explosion, the US Carter administration ended federal support for civil reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel in the US out of concern that it would contribute to the proliferation of nuclear weapons by making plutonium more available. At that time, Canada’s policy on reprocessing also changed to accord with the US policy—although no similar high-level announcement was made by the Canadian government.
Moltex is proposing to use a type of plutonium extraction technology called “pyroprocessing,” in which the solid used reactor fuel is converted to a liquid form, dissolved in a very hot bath of molten salt. What happens next is described by Moltex chairman and chief scientist Ian Scott in a recent article in Energy Intelligence. “We then—in a very, very simple process—extract the plutonium selectively from that molten metal. It’s literally a pot. You put the metal in, put salt in the top, mix them up, and the plutonium moves into the salt, and the salt’s our fuel. That’s it. … You tip the crucible and out pours the fuel for our reactor.”
The federal government recently supported the Moltex project with a $50.5-million grant, announced on March 18 by Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dominic LeBlanc in Saint John.
At the event, LeBlanc and New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs described the Moltex project as “recycling” nuclear waste, although in fact barely one-half of one per cent of the used nuclear fuel is potentially available for use as new reactor fuel. That leaves a lot of radioactive waste left over.
From an international perspective, the government grant to Moltex can be seen as Canada sending a signal—giving a green light to plutonium extraction and the reprocessing of used nuclear fuel.
The US experts’ primary concern is that other countries could point to Canada’s support of the Moltex program to help justify its own plutonium acquisition programs. That could undo years of efforts to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of countries that might want to join the ranks of unofficial nuclear weapons states such as Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. The Moltex project is especially irksome since its proposed pyroprocessing technology is very similar to the one that South Korea has been trying to deploy for almost 10 years.
In their letter, the American experts point out that Japan is currently the only nonnuclear-armed state that reprocesses spent nuclear fuel, a fact that is provoking both domestic and international controversy.
In a follow-up exchange, signatory Frank von Hippel of Princeton University explained that the international controversy is threefold: (1) The United States sees both a nuclear weapons proliferation danger from Japan’s plutonium stockpile and also a nuclear terrorism threat from the possible theft of separated plutonium; (2) China and South Korea see Japan’s plutonium stocks as a basis for a rapid nuclear weaponization; and (3) South Korea’s nuclear-energy R&D community is demanding that the US grant them the same right to separate plutonium as Japan enjoys.
Despite the alarm raised by the nine authors in their letter to Trudeau, they have received no reply from the government. The only response has come from the Moltex CEO Rory O’Sullivan. His reply to a Globe and Mail reporter is similar to his earlier rebuttal in The Hill Times published in his letter to the editor on April 5: the plutonium extracted in the Moltex facility would be “completely unsuitable for use in weapons.”
But the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has stated that “Nuclear weapons can be fabricated using plutonium containing virtually any combination of plutonium isotopes.” All plutonium is of equal “sensitivity” for purposes of IAEA safeguards in nonnuclear weapon states.
Similarly, a 2009 report by nonproliferation experts from six US national laboratories concluded that pyroprocessing is about as susceptible to misuse for nuclear weapons as the original reprocessing technology used by the military, called PUREX.
In 2011, a US State Department official responsible for US nuclear cooperation agreements with other countries went further by stating that pyroprocessing is just as dangerous from a proliferation point of view as any other kind of plutonium extraction technology, saying: “frankly and positively that pyro-processing is reprocessing. Period. Full stop.”
And, despite years of effort, the IAEA has not yet developed an approach to effectively safeguard pyroprocessing to prevent diversion of plutonium for illicit uses.
Given that history has shown the dangers of promoting the greater availability of plutonium, why is the federal government supporting pyroprocessing?
It is clear the nuclear lobby wants it. In the industry’s report, “Feasibility of Small Modular Reactor Development and Deployment in Canada,” released in March, the reprocessing (which they call “recycling”) of spent nuclear fuel is presented as a key element of the industry’s future plans.
Important national and international issues are at stake, and conscientious Canadians should sit up and take notice. Parliamentarians of all parties owe it to their constituents to demand more accountability. To date however, there has been no democratic open debate or public consultation over the path Canada is charting with nuclear energy.
Countless Canadians have urged Canada to sign the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons that came into force at the end of January this year. Ironically, the government has rebuffed these efforts, claiming that it does not want to “undermine” Canada’s long-standing effort to achieve a Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty. Such a treaty would, if it ever saw the light of day (which seems increasingly unlikely), stop the production of weapons usable materials such as highly enriched uranium and (you guessed it) plutonium.
So, the Emperor not only has no clothes, but his right hand doesn’t know what his left hand is doing.
Villagers in England very apprehensive about government plans for a nuclear waste dump.
Theddlethorpe nuclear waste proposal worries villagersm People living in a Lincolnshire village will be “shell-shocked” at proposals to dispose of nuclear waste at a nearby site, a resident has said. BBCRadioactive Waste Management (RWM), a government agency, confirmed last week it was in “early discussions” with the county council about the move
One of the potential UK sites for the waste is at a former gas terminal in Theddlethorpe, near Mablethorpe.
Villager Brian Swift said news of the proposal had emerged “out of nowhere”.
RWM’s proposal for a Geological Disposal Facility could mean nuclear waste from the UK being stored underneath up to 1,000m of solid rock at Theddlethorpe until its radioactivity has naturally decayed.
Steve Reece, head of siting at RWM, said while the firm was talking to the county council to see if it was interested in joining a local working group, “absolutely no decisions have been taken at this stage”………. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-57973015
Wiscasset – just one of thousands of American communities stuck with stranded nuclear wastes.
The situation in Wiscasset underscores a thorny issue facing more than 100 communities across the U.S.: What to do with hundreds of thousands of tons of nuclear waste that has no place to go.
All told, the country’s many abandoned nuclear facilities — including Maine Yankee — have cost the federal government billions of dollars, a sum that increases by about $2 million each day
Keeping the spent fuel on the site was meant to be a temporary solution until the dry storage casks, or canisters, could be transported to a permanent home deep underground where they could stay undisturbed for hundreds of thousands of years.
Armed Guards Protect Tons Of Nuclear Waste That Maine Can’t Get Rid Of Maine Public | By By Abigail Curtis, BDN July 19, 2021 In the summertime, the picturesque village of Wiscasset is infamous for its long lines of people hungry to try a lobster roll at Red’s Eats and cars that crawl through town on the often-clogged U.S. Route 1.
But just a few miles south of downtown is a different kind of roadblock: thousands of tons of nuclear waste stored on a coastal peninsula at the now-decommissioned Maine Yankee atomic energy plant that have nowhere to go.
The change in presidential administrations means another chance for the federal government to make good on its promise to remove the waste, so the site can be closed for good. The Biden administration’s Department of Energy seems to be picking up where the Obama administration left off, creating a process for communities to volunteer to host the waste.
“What worries me is that there really isn’t any national leadership right now on this stuff. There isn’t an agency that has a mission and has developed a strategy, that has goals and is willing to act on it,” Don Hudson, the chairman of the Maine Yankee Community Advisory Panel, said. “We’re currently in this limbo.”
That’s a problem because the waste — 1,400 spent nuclear fuel rods housed in 60 cement and steel canisters, plus four canisters of irradiated steel removed from the nuclear reactor when it was taken down — is safe for now, but can’t stay in Wiscasset forever.
The situation in Wiscasset underscores a thorny issue facing more than 100 communities across the U.S.: What to do with hundreds of thousands of tons of nuclear waste that has no place to go.
Securing these remnants of nuclear energy generation is an ongoing task that requires armed guards around the clock and costs Maine Yankee’s owners some $10 million per year, which is being paid for with money from the government.
After the government failed to remove the spent fuel, Maine Yankee and the other two decommissioned nuclear power plants in New England — Connecticut Yankee in East Hampton, Connecticut, and Yankee Atomic in Rowe, Massachusetts — took it to court. So far, they have been awarded a total of $575.5 million in damages during four rounds of litigation, money that has been paid out of the U.S. Judgment fund. A fifth round is happening now, and the lawsuits are likely to continue until the fuel is removed.
Continue readingCity Council in Calgary, Canada, not happy about ”rushed” agreement to own stranded nuclear wastes in Maine.
The 11-acre temporary storage site is patrolled around the clock by armed security guards.
The situation concerns Coun. Evan Woolley, who said that Enmax never mentioned the spent nuclear fuel site when the utility briefed city council on its bid for Versant.
Calgarians have a stake in Maine nuclear fuel storage facility https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/KtbxLthlxCLcsbdhrlMgpmhjJQTWxmvSdV?compose=new
Facility part of the deal when Enmax bought U.S. utility for $1.8 billion, including debt
Scott Dippel · CBC News · Jul 19, 2021 Enmax’s acquisition of a utility in Maine last year came with a nuclear surprise that city council members say they weren’t told about.
When the city-owned Enmax closed on its deal to buy Versant Power (formerly Emera Maine) in March of 2020, it also acquired Versant’s interest in a former nuclear power plant.
The Maine Yankee plant operated from 1972 to 1996 and was decommissioned in 2005.
Versant owned 12 per cent of the electricity generated by the power plant. Its ratepayers also paid up front for 12 per cent of the decommissioning costs.
The plant was torn down and tonnes of spent nuclear fuel rods from the facility were temporarily encased in 64 concrete silos at a protected site in Wiscassett, Maine.
Part of the deal
The president of Versant Power, John Flynn, tells CBC News that Enmax couldn’t avoid taking on the Maine Yankee obligation when it purchased Versant.
“As part of the acquisition, Enmax really didn’t have the opportunity to pick and choose the assets or relationships or obligations it wanted,” said Flynn. “It was making a bid for the entire company.”
He said there isn’t a market for a temporary nuclear waste storage facility, so any buyer of Versant would have had to take on that obligation.
There are approximately $10 million US in annual costs related to the safe operation of the spent nuclear fuel storage site, including monitoring, maintenance and security.
About 38 people work at the site.
But Flynn said this doesn’t actually cost Versant or Enmax any money.
It’s covered by a trust fund which includes legal settlements from the US Department of Energy (DOE), which has a legal responsibility to ultimately remove the tonnes of spent fuel and find a permanent storage site.
Temporary site may be used for years
Flynn said there’s currently no estimate from the DOE on when it may move the materials to a final storage site.
He said the trust fund has enough money in it that the operation of the temporary facility will be covered for years to come.
In some years, Flynn said annual payments from the fund have been made to Versant customers who prepaid the decommissioning costs during the years the nuclear power plant was in operation.
The 11-acre temporary storage site is patrolled around the clock by armed security guards.
“The entire site is surrounded by a security perimeter that has 24/7 security that is of the level you would expect to see on an army base, so it is a hyper-secure site.”
While Enmax says it doesn’t own the spent nuclear fuel, it does list in its annual financial report the historical 12 per cent interest in Maine Yankee.
Council kept in dark
The situation concerns Coun. Evan Woolley, who said that Enmax never mentioned the spent nuclear fuel site when the utility briefed city council on its bid for Versant.
He is one of several council members contacted by CBC News who said they were unaware of that part of the $1.3 billion acquisition, which also included $500 million in debt.
Owning 12 per cent of a company that owns a bunch of nuclear waste has not only reputational risk but also real risk in terms of the world that we live in,” said Woolley.
The Ward 8 councillor, who is also the chair of council’s audit committee, said he would have liked to have known this information before council approved Enmax’s purchase.
“For us to not have been made aware of that is unacceptable,” said Woolley.
“Enmax and now Versant Power, which was Emera Maine, is owned by Calgarians. So council and the shareholder are accountable for that decision.”
Outside eyes needed
He describes Enmax’s pitch to city council to approve its takeover of the company in Maine as “rushed.”
His preference is that in future, a third party could assess such business opportunities for council and make a recommendation.
That perspective could come from the city’s chief financial officer, the city solicitor or an external consultant.
A report is expected before the audit committee in September, which he said could result in changes that could help ensure Enmax and all of the city’s wholly-owned subsidiaries are on the same page as city council in the future.
He describes Enmax as “the massive gorilla in the room in terms of its size and scale.” “The risk appetite of Enmax versus the risk appetite of a shareholder are different. And that’s where we need to provide better alignment,” said Woolley.
If council approves of any changes for its subsidiaries, he said it would mean that another transaction like the Versant purchase could not occur in the way that it did.
The 11-acre temporary storage site is patrolled around the clock by armed security guards.
The situation concerns Coun. Evan Woolley, who said that Enmax never mentioned the spent nuclear fuel site when the utility briefed city council on its bid for Versant.
Calgarians have a stake in Maine nuclear fuel storage facility AT TOP https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox/KtbxLthlxCLcsbdhrlMgpmhjJQTWxmvSdV?compose=new
Facility part of the deal when Enmax bought U.S. utility for $1.8 billion, including debt
Scott Dippel · CBC News · Jul 19, 2021 Enmax’s acquisition of a utility in Maine last year came with a nuclear surprise that city council members say they weren’t told about.
When the city-owned Enmax closed on its deal to buy Versant Power (formerly Emera Maine) in March of 2020, it also acquired Versant’s interest in a former nuclear power plant.
The Maine Yankee plant operated from 1972 to 1996 and was decommissioned in 2005.
Versant owned 12 per cent of the electricity generated by the power plant. Its ratepayers also paid up front for 12 per cent of the decommissioning costs.
The plant was torn down and tonnes of spent nuclear fuel rods from the facility were temporarily encased in 64 concrete silos at a protected site in Wiscassett, Maine.
Part of the deal
The president of Versant Power, John Flynn, tells CBC News that Enmax couldn’t avoid taking on the Maine Yankee obligation when it purchased Versant.
“As part of the acquisition, Enmax really didn’t have the opportunity to pick and choose the assets or relationships or obligations it wanted,” said Flynn. “It was making a bid for the entire company.”
He said there isn’t a market for a temporary nuclear waste storage facility, so any buyer of Versant would have had to take on that obligation.
There are approximately $10 million US in annual costs related to the safe operation of the spent nuclear fuel storage site, including monitoring, maintenance and security.
About 38 people work at the site.
But Flynn said this doesn’t actually cost Versant or Enmax any money.
It’s covered by a trust fund which includes legal settlements from the US Department of Energy (DOE), which has a legal responsibility to ultimately remove the tonnes of spent fuel and find a permanent storage site.
Temporary site may be used for years
Flynn said there’s currently no estimate from the DOE on when it may move the materials to a final storage site.
He said the trust fund has enough money in it that the operation of the temporary facility will be covered for years to come.
In some years, Flynn said annual payments from the fund have been made to Versant customers who prepaid the decommissioning costs during the years the nuclear power plant was in operation.
The 11-acre temporary storage site is patrolled around the clock by armed security guards.
“The entire site is surrounded by a security perimeter that has 24/7 security that is of the level you would expect to see on an army base, so it is a hyper-secure site.”
While Enmax says it doesn’t own the spent nuclear fuel, it does list in its annual financial report the historical 12 per cent interest in Maine Yankee.
Council kept in dark
The situation concerns Coun. Evan Woolley, who said that Enmax never mentioned the spent nuclear fuel site when the utility briefed city council on its bid for Versant.
He is one of several council members contacted by CBC News who said they were unaware of that part of the $1.3 billion acquisition, which also included $500 million in debt.
Owning 12 per cent of a company that owns a bunch of nuclear waste has not only reputational risk but also real risk in terms of the world that we live in,” said Woolley.
The Ward 8 councillor, who is also the chair of council’s audit committee, said he would have liked to have known this information before council approved Enmax’s purchase.
“For us to not have been made aware of that is unacceptable,” said Woolley.
“Enmax and now Versant Power, which was Emera Maine, is owned by Calgarians. So council and the shareholder are accountable for that decision.”
Outside eyes needed
He describes Enmax’s pitch to city council to approve its takeover of the company in Maine as “rushed.”
His preference is that in future, a third party could assess such business opportunities for council and make a recommendation.
That perspective could come from the city’s chief financial officer, the city solicitor or an external consultant.
A report is expected before the audit committee in September, which he said could result in changes that could help ensure Enmax and all of the city’s wholly-owned subsidiaries are on the same page as city council in the future.
He describes Enmax as “the massive gorilla in the room in terms of its size and scale.” “The risk appetite of Enmax versus the risk appetite of a shareholder are different. And that’s where we need to provide better alignment,” said Woolley.
If council approves of any changes for its subsidiaries, he said it would mean that another transaction like the Versant purchase could not occur in the way that it did.
Costly dismantling of France’s Brennilis nuclear power plant continues, 35 years after shutdown.
The dismantling of the Brennilis nuclear power plant, in the Monts
d’Arrée (Finistère) will be completed by 2040 and will have cost 850
million euros, the departmental council of Finistère said on Thursday.
These operations began over 35 years ago.
France Bleu 15th July 2021
EPA Withdraws Disastrous Trump-Era Radioactive Roads Approval
If dispersed, the material would present an unreasonable public health threat stemming from the appreciable quantities of radium-226, uranium, uranium-238, uranium-234, thorium-230, radon-222, lead-210, polonium-210, chromium, arsenic, lead, cadmium, fluoride, zinc, antimony and copper phosphogypsum contains.
EPA Withdraws Disastrous Trump-Era Radioactive Roads Approval
Use of Phosphogypsum in Roads Poses Risk of Cancer, Genetic Damage https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/epa-withdraws-disastrous-trump-era-radioactive-roads-approval-2021-07-02/
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla.— The Biden administration announced it is withdrawing approval given by the Trump administration to use phosphogypsum in construction. The retracted approval had allowed the use of toxic, radioactive waste in constructing roads in parts of the United States prone to sinkholes and erosion.
“Allowing phosphogypsum in roads was a boneheaded, short-sighted favor to the industry,” said Jaclyn Lopez, Florida director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “While the withdrawal cites technical deficiencies in the applicant’s petition, this action is consistent with 30 years of science showing that phosphogypsum poses a substantial risk to humans and the environment.”
In December 2020 environmental, public health and union groups, represented by Earthjustice, sued the Environmental Protection Agency for approving phosphogypsum use in roads. The groups also petitioned the agency to reconsider its approval.
Phosphogypsum is the radioactive waste of fertilizer production. Phosphate ore, mined largely in Florida, is transported to fertilizer plants for processing by chemically digesting the ore in sulfuric acid. For every ton of phosphoric acid produced, the fertilizer industry creates five tons of radioactive phosphogypsum waste.
Since 1989 the EPA has required phosphogypsum to be stored in mountainous piles called “stacks,” and limited the amount of radon gas that can be emitted from the stacks. If dispersed, the material would present an unreasonable public health threat stemming from the appreciable quantities of radium-226, uranium, uranium-238, uranium-234, thorium-230, radon-222, lead-210, polonium-210, chromium, arsenic, lead, cadmium, fluoride, zinc, antimony and copper phosphogypsum contains.
In approving phosphogypsum use in roads, the agency ignored its own expert consultant, who found numerous scenarios that would expose the public — particularly road-construction workers — to a cancer risk the agency considers to be unacceptably dangerous.
The approval would have permitted phosphogypsum to be used in roads within 200 miles of phosphogypsum storage stacks, most of which are in Florida. It would have affected hundreds of protected plants and animals and their critical habitat.
“Phosphate companies should not be allowed to carelessly spread their waste around by mixing it into roads,” said Glenn Compton, chair at ManaSota-88.
“It is the height irresponsibility for any industry to needlessly expose the public and the environment to otherwise avoidable radiation and hazardous waste.”
Florida has 1 billion tons of radioactive phosphogypsum in 25 stacks, including the Piney Point and New Wales gypstacks. The disastrous Piney Point phosphogypsum stack recently discharged more than 200 million gallons of wastewater into Tampa Bay, where there is now a red tide bloom.
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection has drafted a permit approving an expansion of the New Wales stack by 230 acres.
The fertilizer industry adds approximately 30 million tons of phosphogypsum waste each year. The majority of the stacks are in Florida, but they can also be found in Arkansas, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.
“This is great news at a time when we could all use some,” said Brooks Armstrong, president at People for Protecting Peace River. “We will continue in our effort to make known the dangers of phosphogypsum and its continued production.”
This proposal to utilize radioactive materials in roads throughout Gulf communities was just another insult to folks already overburdened with pollution,” said Matt Rota, senior policy director of Healthy Gulf. “We are glad to see this decision to not use radioactive phosphogypsum in local roads and hope that this is a step toward systematically addressing the myriad impacts of phosphate mining and production in the Gulf States.”
“The EPA recognizes that at minimum the prior administration erred in its approval by not following its own rules regarding required information, and that there is no implicit sequencing toward approval based on an applicant’s request,” said Craig Diamond, vice chair of the Sierra Club Florida chapter executive committee. “Further, the EPA affirmed it has authority to pre-approve only select applications of phosphogypsum and road construction is not among those. The Sierra Club is grateful that the federal agency charged with protecting the environment and our health is once again taking the job seriously.”
1 This Month
Website of the Week
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- January 2026 (148)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
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 