OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the North-East Atlantic discreetly postpones its commitment to reduce radioactive discharges at sea
The OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the North-East Atlanticdiscreetly postpones its commitment to reduce radioactive discharges at sea from 2020 to 2050. Following the Cascais meeting of the OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the North-East Atlantic, which took place on October 1, the participating ministers discreetly postponed until 2050 the commitment made in 1998 in Sintra to reduce radioactive discharges into the sea to levels close to zero by 2020.
Once again, international commitments to the environment are being disregarded. This does not bode well for the
upcoming COP26 in Glasgow.
France is the first beneficiary of this 30-year postponement because, with its reprocessing plant at La Hague, it has the
highest radioactive discharges to the sea in Europe. And these discharges are not decreasing, as shown by the results of the citizen monitoring of radioactivity in the environment carried out by ACRO for over 25 years.
ACRO 19th Oct 2021
The OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the North-East Atlantic discreetly postpones its commitment to reduce radioactive discharges at sea from 2020 to 2050
Backlash against Japanese Prime Minister’s haste to dump Fukushima nuclear water into the ocean

Kishida triggers backlash by saying dumping Fukushima nuclear water can’t be delayed, Global Times, By Xu Keyue: Oct 19, 2021 Only two weeks after taking office, Japan’s new prime minister Fumio Kishida pressed two hot buttons on the same day on Sunday – sending a ritual offering to the war-linked Yasukuni Shrine, and claiming the Fukushima wastewater release cannot be delayed, despite opposition from home and abroad.
Instead of taking full advantage of its own science and technology to process the Fukushima wastewater and deliver a qualified answer to the world over the water treatment, Japan has opted for its irresponsible plan to dump the wastewater as soon as possible and provided self-contradictory explanations for the decision, said Chinese experts.Speaking at his first visit to the tsunami-wrecked Fukushima nuclear plant since taking office, Kishida said the planned mass disposal of wastewater stored at the facility cannot be delayed, claiming his government would work to reassure residents nearby the plant about the technical safety of the wastewater disposal project, Asahi Shimbun reported Monday.
South Korea has expressed concern over Kishida’s plan to release the radioactive wastewater, according to South Korean media on Monday.
“Japan’s decision [to discharge the wastewater] was made without enough consultations with neighboring nations,” a senior South Korean foreign ministry official said. “We have expressed serious concerns and opposition to its plan, which could affect our people’s health and security as well as the ocean environment.”
The Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc. (TEPCO) has planned to build a one-kilometer undersea tunnel to release contaminated radioactive water out to sea, amid condemnation from fishermen, media reported in late August.
The plan again showed that Japan’s “explanation” over the safety of the water is “self-contradicting,” Liu Jiangyong, vice dean of the Institute of Modern International Relations at Tsinghua University, told the Global Times on Monday.
Assuming the wastewater has been processed without any side effects or pollution as the Japanese government claimed, and that people can even drink it, why does the Japanese government not simply discharge the water into the sea but plan to dump the water 1 kilometer away from the local residents? asked Liu. He also questioned the claim that it will have no impact on the marine environment and life chain, and asked why the water could not be recycled on land if the wastewater can be processed so cleanly and safely.
Japan can’t answer any of these questions, said Liu, noting that dumping the nuclear water shows that the water is “unusual.”…………. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#inbox?compose=DmwnWsTJtkLTcgrqMkBKSqBpmgbKhMHpzMMgttqhvJHgDJrfsKrtFCCwkflZJkjjhwgvJbPrQhFV
America’s paralysis on nuclear waste, as radioactive trash continues to accumulate.

GAO urges Congress to tackle nuclear waste storage impasse
‘The ghost of Yucca still stalks the policy debate and … there hasn’t been enough sustained pressure to find solutions’ By TERI SFORZA | tsforza@scng.com | Orange County Register, October 17, 2021 Who’s to blame for the paralysis that strands millions of pounds of radioactive waste at reactor sites all over the nation, and will cost taxpayers some $40 billion — and perhaps a lot more?
Congress, the U.S. Government Accountability Office says. And Congress must fix it.
In a dispassionate but merciless examination of the string of follies that has put the federal government nearly a quarter-century behind accepting waste from commercial reactors like the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station — where 3.6 million pounds of waste must sit for years or possibly decades — the GAO chronicled the weeds that have choked the effort, then hacked through them to clear a path forward.
“Commercial spent nuclear fuel is extremely dangerous if not managed properly,” the report said. “About 86,000 metric tons of this fuel is stored on-site at 75 operating or shutdown nuclear power plants in 33 states, an amount that grows by about 2,000 metric tons each year.”
The radioisotopes produced in a reactor can remain hazardous from a few days to many thousands of years, the GAO said.
“The longer it takes the federal government to resolve the current impasse and develop a solution for the permanent disposal of commercial spent nuclear fuel, the greater the potential risk to the environment and public health, or of security incidents associated with temporary on-site storage,” the report said. “(T)he safety of long-term dry cask storage is unknown, and the risks, such as environmental and health risks, of on-site storage increase the longer the fuel is stored there.”
Attempted sabotage and theft of radioactive material are also potential security risks, the report said…………….
How to fix
Obama assembled a Blue Ribbon Commission that laid out a path forward in 2012, and it’s largely the path that the GAO urges lawmakers to embrace now. It recommends that Congress:
- Amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to allow the DOE to implement a new, consent-based process for siting temporary storage and permanent geologic disposal facilities.
- Restructure the Nuclear Waste Fund, which has about $43 billion in it to ensure reliable and sufficient funding.
- Create an independent board or similar mechanism to provide political insulation for a nuclear waste disposal program, as well as continuity of leadership.
- Direct DOE to develop a temporary waste management strategy that includes plans for the transportation, interim storage and permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel.
- It’s not as if officials don’t know what to do with nuclear waste. In 1957, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that disposal in a geologic formation was the safest way to isolate nuclear waste. Myriad studies in the decades since have reached the same conclusion………………………….. https://www.ocregister.com/2021/10/17/gao-urges-congress-to-tackle-nuclear-waste-storage-impasse/
Exposed: French nuclear companies dumping radioactive waste in Siberia. Activists call on EU not to count nuclear energy as sustainable .

“For the French nuclear industry to resume this kind of irresponsible overseas dumping is proof that there is no sustainable solution to the ever-growing problem of radioactive waste. Giving dangerous nuclear energy a green label in the EU taxonomy will make the waste problem worse, and actively divert investments away from real solutions like energy savings, energy storage and renewables.”
A key principle of the taxonomy is that any activity must “do no significant harm” to the environment in order to be included as “sustainable”. The European Commission will open a public consultation in the coming weeks on the issue of whether nuclear energy should be included in the taxonomy.
![]() |
![]() |

Exposed: French nuclear companies dumping radioactive waste in Siberia https://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/issues/climate-energy/45879/french-nuclear-companies-exposed-dumping-radioactive-waste-siberia/?fbclid=IwAR0FmZuQKuuQgWaAPthDXShxwc1s7_3Q4zwARV0xR2yfZL2EnvGj0nU5xX4Greenpeace European Unit 12/10/2021 Activists call on EU not to count nuclear energy as sustainable
Paris / Brussels, 12 October 2021 – Greenpeace activists today laid fifteen metal drums featuring a radioactive symbol in front of the headquarters of Orano, a French nuclear fuel company, in protest against the dumping of French nuclear waste at an unsafe site in Seversk, Siberia. The protest comes as a new investigation by Greenpeace France has revealed that exports of nuclear waste to Russia have restarted after an eleven-year hiatus. [1]
New satellite images from Seversk show thousands of barrels lying outdoors exposed to the elements. The practice of exporting radioactive waste from the EU to a third country is subject to strict conditions, including the safety and proper management of the destination facility. [2]
The revelations that exports of French nuclear waste to Russia have restarted come shortly after ministers from ten EU countries, including France, wrote an op-ed in several European newspapers calling for the inclusion of nuclear energy in the EU’s guidelines for green investments, the “EU taxonomy”. [3]
Roger Spautz, nuclear campaigner at Greenpeace France and Luxembourg , said: “For the French nuclear industry to resume this kind of irresponsible overseas dumping is proof that there is no sustainable solution to the ever-growing problem of radioactive waste. Giving dangerous nuclear energy a green label in the EU taxonomy will make the waste problem worse, and actively divert investments away from real solutions like energy savings, energy storage and renewables.”
A key principle of the taxonomy is that any activity must “do no significant harm” to the environment in order to be included as “sustainable”. The European Commission will open a public consultation in the coming weeks on the issue of whether nuclear energy should be included in the taxonomy.
President Emmanuel Macron is also expected to announce funding today for so-called “small modular nuclear reactors” as part of his “France 2030” investment package.
Investigation
The investigation by Greenpeace France reveals that, in January and February 2021, the nuclear fuel company Orano shipped hundreds of tonnes of spent uranium to Rosatom, Russia’s state-owned nuclear energy firm.
Activists in the port of Le Havre, Normandy, witnessed the loading of radioactive material onto a ship bound for St. Petersburg. From there, the waste continued by train to a dumping facility in the city of Seversk, Siberia, formerly known as Tomsk-7. Greenpeace has seen no evidence that the management of the Seversk site has improved since 2010, when Orano (then named Areva) admitted that environmental concerns were a factor in its decision to cease exporting uranium there. [4]
Orano confirmed the new shipments in an email to Greenpeace France. EDF, France’s largest nuclear energy provider, also signed a similar deal with Rosatom in 2018, but does not appear to have carried out any such shipments yet. Both companies are largely owned by the French state.
The scale of global e-waste

The scale of global e-waste — The Earthbound Report
The scale of global e-waste https://earthbound.report/2021/10/14/the-scale-of-global-e-waste/byJEREMY WILLIAMSOctober 14, 2021
Today is International e-waste day, which aims to raise awareness of waste electronics. It’s a growing problem, as more people buy phones, laptops and other gadgets, and as they are replaced at a faster rate.
If you average the problem across the global population, 7.6kg of e-waste is created every year for every person on the planet – though of course there are inequalities within that. The UK is among the worst in the world, creating 23kg of e-waste per person per year – second only to Norway. That’s something we need to take some responsibility for, not least because e-waste so often becomes an environmental justice issue.
There are system-wide things we should be doing here to encourage a circular economy. Repair standards are one of those, as I wrote about last week with the ten year smartphone initiative. Rules to prevent planned obsolescence, as France has pioneered. At the personal level, we should try to make things last, repair where we can, and ensure that our gadgets are recycled properly.
MusicMagpie, which re-sells secondhand electronics, has created a series of visuals to help explore the scale of e-waste
Greenpeace France denounces shipments of uranium from Orano to Russia

Greenpeace denounces shipments of uranium from Orano to Russia. An Orano spokesperson confirms that the group signed a contract with Rosatom at the end of 2020 for the sale of just over 1,000 tonnes of reprocessed uranium for the manufacture of “nuclear fuel for Russian power plants.
Ouest France 12th Oct 2021
At each stage of its production, nuclear electricity generates tons of waste and material that is difficult to reuse and as a result accumulates throughout France. These ever-increasing quantities of useless radioactive substances are a problem for the French nuclear industry and tarnish its message regarding the alleged environmental virtues of nuclear power.
To rid themselves of some of this cumbersome waste, French companies EDF and Orano have chosen to resume the sale of spent uranium to Russia – a business interrupted over 10 years ago. While nvestigating in the port of Le Havre, Greenpeace France discovered that several dozen tons of uranium
obtained by reprocessing spent fuel were loaded on board the ship Kapitan Lomonosov bound for St. Petersburg on 20 January and 12 February 2021.
Greenpeace France 13th Oct 2021
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant adds space for nuclear waste disposal near Carlsbad
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant adds space for nuclear waste disposal near Carlsbad Adrian Hedden, Carlsbad Current-Argus, 12 Oct 21, An eighth panel to store nuclear waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant’s underground repository near Carlsbad was completed with waste expected to go in next year . At WIPP, low-level transuranic (TRU) nuclear waste made up of clothing materials and equipment irradiated during nuclear activities, is stored in an underground salt deposit about 2,000 feet underground.The facility stores the waste in panels, with each panel containing seven rooms where workers emplace drums of it and allow the salt to gradually collapse in for permanent disposal.WIPP has emplaced waste in seven panels so far but lost some capacity due to contamination from an accidental radiological release in 2014 that also disrupted mining and emplacement activities during a three-year shutdown of the WIPP’s core operations. But seven years since mining Panel 8 began, WIPP officials reported the work was complete in Tuesday announcement.Panel 7 was expected to be full by April 2022, per the announcement, and Panel 8 will be ready to accept waste immediately……………… The utility shaft project was paused last year when the New Mexico Environment Department denied extending a temporary authorization for construction ahead of a modification to WIPP’s permit to allow its use, citing concerns with COVID-19 infections at the site.The permit modification is under review by NMED.Also under review by NMED was a proposal by WIPP to construct two additional panels needed to restore the facility’s capacity from losses associated with the 2014 incident………. https://www.currentargus.com/story/news/local/2021/10/13/wipp-adds-space-nuclear-waste-disposal-near-carlsbad/6092842001/ |
Lincolnshire nuclear waste burial can go ahead only if the local community suports it
Plans to dispose of nuclear waste from across the UK in Lincolnshire can
only go ahead with the support of a “willing community”, officials have
said. Radioactive Waste Management (RWM), a government agency, has
identified a potential site at a former gas terminal in Theddlethorpe, near
Mablethorpe. However, opponents said the move would impact tourism and
lower house prices in the area. A working group has now been formed to
examine the proposals.
BBC 12th Oct 2021
They don’t even know if the geology of Theddlethorpe, Lincolnshire is suitable for nuclear waste burial
The mining engineer in charge of the multi-billion pound scheme to bury
nuclear waste deep under the sea bed off the Lincolnshire coast has
admitted it is not known if the site is even suitable.
Government agency Radioactive Waste Management wants to build a plant at the old gas terminal
at Theddlethorpe to receive “high-level” material for storage at a
“geological disposal facility” (GDF) in clay rock 500 metres below the
North Sea. A GDF contains solid radioactive waste encapsulated in concrete
or glass and packaged in a concrete or metal container which is stored in
underground tunnels and vaults.
If Theddlethorpe went ahead, vaults would
be constructed and rubbish dumped over the plant’s 100-year operational
life before the site is finally sealed off. Local talks and the process of
identifying a search area for the facility can now begin following the
launch of a working group on Tuesday, October 12, after the county council
agreed to join the group. But the site would probably not receive its first
trainloads of waste until the 2040s at the earliest, even if the numerous
planning hurdles were successfully cleared and the public gives its
consent. Head of siting Steve Reece said that RWM is not entirely certain
at this stage if Lincolnshire even has the right geology.
Lincolnshire Live 12th Oct 2021
https://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news/local-news/officials-honestly-dont-know-lincolnshire-6047422
Nuclear power is not a good option for Kentucky. Radioactive waste is still a problem

Nuclear power is not a good option for Kentucky. Radioactive waste is still a problem https://www.courier-journal.com/story/opinion/2021/10/08/nuclear-power-plants-bring-radioactive-waste-problematic-kentucky/5951188001/, David Ross Stevens Proponents of nuclear power plants speak eloquently about the efficiencies and safety of uranium-powered electrical generation. However, they cavalierly pass by the major problems of radioactivity — both before and after power generation. This is exactly what happened in the recent Courier Journal op-ed piece by Julian Colvin, a nuclear engineering student at North Carolina State University. He contends that Kentucky’s best option for transitioning from coal to something else is to nuclear power because of its new safety measures and efficiencies. That is all well and good, perhaps, but the major knock against nuclear power is what happens before electrical generation and after electrical generation.
Kentucky already has experience with both. The “before” example is the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant that turned raw uranium ore into a more usable gas to be sent to the Oak Ridge, TN, plant for nuclear rods and for bomb-making. The “after” example is the Maxey Flats low-level radioactive waste deposit site 10 miles northwest of Morehead, KY. Both places are now closed but still are staffed by people who are trying to “manage” the migration of radioactive water aimed at the Ohio River. These jobs are “forever” jobs because the Department of Energy sees no end to the need for cleanup and environmental protection.
The Paducah plant, one of sixteen such U.S. facilities, is now labeled a Superfund high-priority environmental disaster site. In the year 2020 alone the Department of Energy requested $277 million for the Paducah cleanup plan which is decades behind schedule. After all, there are 750 acres with highly polluted land and 400 more buildings to be decontaminated and demolished. Many people there have sued because of radioactive-caused diseases. Their cases are pending. The plant has been closed to production for 27 years, but still employs hundreds of workers trying to contain the wastes. None of these costs are ever reflected in “efficiency claims” by nuclear engineers.
And then there is Maxey Flats, a facility that the late Governor Bert Combs thought would be the beginning of a great economic boon for Kentucky. Anything that uranium comes into contact with ends up as waste — desks, brooms, coveralls, tanks, pipes, you name it. The private company that operated the site dug 64 trenches, each one more than two football fields long. They were 30 feet deep and then covered with 10 feet of soil.
Apparently no one thought that the rain would seep down onto the half million pounds of material. And that the rainwater might pick up some radioactivity. And that it might flow off with other groundwater toward the nearby Ohio River. That is precisely what happened, according to the monitoring wells surrounding the 770 acres. So for 14 years the material was trucked in until the monitoring wells started to tell their tale. In 1977 the dump was closed to dumping but not to the ensuing cleanup. By 1979 the state took over “management” duties for the next 42 years. The state has had to dig six more rubber-lined trenches to receive wastes generated by the very site itself. It would be interesting to see a cost/benefit study for the Commonwealth of Kentucky during the decade and a half of activity and the four decades of post-activity.
There are many people like engineering student Julian Colvin, who advise Kentucky to forgo solar and wind energy in favor of nuclear power as the substitute for coal. Here are two numbers I like to think of in response. Nuclear waste lasts for hundreds of thousands of years before they are half-decayed. Our United States government — perhaps the longest continuous government in the world — is only 232 years old. Who will be around to manage uranium wastes?
David Ross Stevens was the first investigative environmental writer for The Courier Journal, a former adjunct professor at Indiana University Southeast, New Albany teaching a sustainability course and the designer/builder of his own solar house 42 years ago.
Russia’s perilous job in raising sunken nuclear submarines

In both cases, experts fear that a nuclear chain reaction could occur should water leak into the submarines’ reactor compartments. Russian scientists have kept a close eye on the K-159, launching regular expeditions to monitor for potential radiation leaks. According to their data, should the submarine depressurize, radionuclides could spread over hundreds of kilometers, heavily impacting the local fishing industry.
Yet the subs represent just a fraction of the radiation hazards that the Soviet Navy dumped at sea. Between 1959 and 1992, the Soviets carried out 80 missions to sink radioactive debris in Arctic water. In total, some 18,000 objects considered to be radioactive waste were plunged to Arctic depths. Aside from the K-159 and the K-27, the Soviet Navy scuttled reactor compartments, solid radioactive waste, a number of irradiated vessels, as well as old metal structures and radioactive equipment.
Rosatom official puts deadline on raising old nuclear submarines https://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/2021-10-rosatom-official-puts-deadline-on-raising-old-nuclear-submarines
An official with Rosatom, Russia’s state nuclear corporation, has announced a deadline for raising two Soviet-era nuclear submarines that have been lying for decades at the bottom of seas in the Arctic over fears their reactors could contaminate fertile international fishing grounds. October 6, 2021 by Charles Digges
An official with Rosatom, Russia’s state nuclear corporation, has announced a deadline for raising two Soviet-era nuclear submarines that have been lying for decades at the bottom of seas in the Arctic over fears their reactors could contaminate fertile international fishing grounds.
As indicated in the strategy for the development of the Arctic, 2030, not earlier,” Anatoly Grigoriev, head of Rosatom’s international technical assistance project, told Interfax late last month.
The announcement confirms what unnamed officials had earlier told Russian state media more than a year ago. Since then, Bellona has urged Russia, during its two-year chairmanship of the Arctic Council, to pursue retrieving the submarines to avoid the contamination risk their reactors, and the spent nuclear fuel they contain, pose to the ocean environment.
Grigoriev’s remarks concerned the K-27 and K-159, both of which went down still loaded with their uranium fuel. Both submarines, say experts, are in a precarious state. But the submarines sank under different circumstances.
Continue readingAllerdale GDF Working Group’s map of area considered for UK’s nuclear waste dump includes areas already declared unsuitable.
Allerdale GDF Working Group have finally released a map of their search
area today, illustrating where they would like to consider burying the
UK’s vast nuclear waste inventory. However, what they haven’t mentioned
is that a significant proportion of the chosen area has previously been
declared as unsuitable by the British Geological Survey (BGS). Here [on original] is a
map produced by the BGS in 2010 which identifies areas unsuitable for
geological disposal, largely due to the presence of coal and coal-bed
methane.
Cumbria Trust 6th Oct 2021
Russia aims to lift old dead nuclear submarines from the bottom of the Barents and Kara Seas by 2030
![]() ![]() | |||
Russia to Lift Radioactive Time Bombs From Ocean Floor in 2030, https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/10/04/russia-to-lift-radioactive-time-bombs-from-ocean-floor-in-2030-a75207 Two rusty nuclear submarines will be raised from the sea beds of the Barents and Kara Seas and brought to a shipyard for safe decommissioning. By The Barents Observer 4 Oct 21, The November-class K-159 submarine sank in late August 2003 while being towed in bad weather from the closed naval base of Gremikha on the eastern shores of the Kola Peninsula toward the Nerpa shipyard north of Murmansk.
Researchers have monitored the wreck ever since, fearing leakages of radioactivity from the two old nuclear reactors onboard could contaminate the important fishing grounds in the Barents Sea. A joint Norwegian-Russian expedition examined the site in 2014 and concluded that no leakage has so far occurred from the reactors to the surrounding marine environment.
However, the bad shape of the hull could eventually lead to radionuclide leakages. A modeling study by the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research said that a pulse discharge of the entire Caesium-137 inventory from the two reactors could increase concentrations in cod in the eastern part of the Barents Sea up to 100 times current levels for a two-year period after the discharge. While a Cs-137 increase of 100 times in cod sounds dramatic, the levels would still be below international guidelines, but tell that to the market buying the fish.
Now, Russia’s nuclear corporation Rosatom has announced the date for lifting the K-159 to 2030.
“As indicated in the strategy for the development of the Arctic, 2030, not earlier,” Anatoly Grigoriev, head of Rosatom’s international technical assistance project, told Interfax.
Grigoriev said Atomflot, the state operator of civilian nuclear-powered icebreakers whose technical base is just north of Murmansk, could become the contractor for the lifting.
The Rosatom official added that the K-27, a submarine dumped in the Kara Sea in 1982, is also included on the list of nuclear objects on the Arctic seabed to be salvaged by 2030.
The submarine was dumped at a depth of 33 meters in the Stepovogo fjord on the eastern shores of Novaya Zemlya.
Last month, divers from the Center for Underwater Research of the Russian Geographical Society conducted a survey of the submarine’s hull. Metal pieces were cut free and the thickness of the hull was measured, along with other inspections of the submarine that has been corroding on the seabed for nearly 40 years.
Based on the examination, a detailed plan will be worked out on how to conduct the salvage with destabilizing the uranium fuel in the reactors in such a way that a new chain reactor could be restarted with a worst-case scenario of triggering direct contact between the uranium fuel and seawater.
Norway led the way in 25 years of clean-up of Russia’s dead nuclear submarine radioactive trash

Andreyeva Bay evolved into a dumping ground for 22,000 spent nuclear fuel assemblies offloaded from hundreds of Soviet submarines. Cracks in storage pools made worse by the hard Arctic freeze threatened to contaminate the Barents Sea. At one point, experts even feared the radioactive morgue might spark an uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction.
Norway has led the pack by far, contributing some $220 million over the past 20 years toward safely removing Andreyeva Bay’s spend nuclear fuel – a national movement spawned when Bellona published its first report on Northwest Russia’s nuclear hazards in 1996.
Norway and Russia mark 25 years of cooperative work on radiation security https://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/2021-10-norway-and-russia-mark-25-years-of-cooperative-work-on-radiation-se 4 Oct 21
Two and a half decades ago, a green four-car train would make the rounds every few months of Russia’s icy Kola Peninsula to cart nuclear fuel and radioactive waste 3,000 kilometers south to the Ural Mountains. October 4, 2021 by Charles Digges
Two and a half decades ago, a green four-car train would make the rounds every few months of Russia’s icy Kola Peninsula to cart nuclear fuel and radioactive waste 3,000 kilometers south to the Ural Mountains.
At the time, that lonely rail artery was the center of a logistical and financial bottleneck that made Northwest Russia – home of the once feared Soviet nuclear fleet – a toxic nuclear dumping ground shrouded in military secrecy.
Nearly 200 rusted out submarines bobbed in icy waters at bases throughout the region, their reactors still loaded with nuclear fuel, vulnerable to sinking or worse. Further from shore and under the waves laid other submarines and nuclear waste intentionally scuttled by the Soviet navy. Still more radioactive spent fuel was piling up in storage tanks and open-air bins on military bases and in shipyards.
One of those places was Andreyeva Bay, a run-down nuclear submarine maintenance yard just 55 kilometers from the Norwegian border.
Since the birth of the nuclear navy in the 1960s, Andreyeva Bay evolved into a dumping ground for 22,000 spent nuclear fuel assemblies offloaded from hundreds of Soviet submarines. Cracks in storage pools made worse by the hard Arctic freeze threatened to contaminate the Barents Sea. At one point, experts even feared the radioactive morgue might spark an uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction.
Infrastructure, technology and the Kremlin were failing to keep up with the mushrooming catastrophe. That green nuclear fuel train could only bear away 588 fuel assemblies at a time three or four times a year – little more than the contents of one nuclear submarine per trip. Even if the train ran on schedule, removing broken or deformed nuclear fuel elements at Andreyeva Bay was still seen as impossible
In the bleak and politically chaotic late 1990s, many feared that the carcinogenic remains of the Cold War would lie neglected at Andreyeva Bay for decades more.
“Now, after more than two decades of international effort spearheaded by Bellona, nearly all of those threats are already – or nearly – the stuff of history,” says Oskar Njaa, Bellona’ general manager for international affairs.
Those efforts have been backed by more than $200 million in funding from Norway, which, in 1996, became the first western government to recognize the new Russia’s emerging crisis over its radioactive legacy.
Norway’s financial foray into northwest Russia paved the way for yet more funding from the West, as numerous other European nations pitched in to help.
Last week, officials from both sides of the border gathered at Andreyeva Bay – now the flagship project between the two nations – to mark the 25th anniversary of the Norwegian-Russian Commission on Nuclear Safety.
“Bellona became the first organization in the world to publish such a name ‘Andreyeva Bay,’ and also told about the facility itself and its condition, ”said Alexander Nikitin, who directs Bellona’s St Petersburg offices, and was the first to sound the alarm.
“It was in 1996. After that, the object drew the close attention of the international community and international projects began.”
The first containers of Andreyeva’s accumulated waste were packed up in 2017 and borne away on a specially outfitted ship called the Rossita – itself a bit of expertise donated by Italy under the Northern Dimensions Environmental Partnership, an enormous Russian nuclear cleanup fund managed by the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development.
To date, the Rossita has made 15 trips, bearing away 10,000 spent nuclear fuel assemblies for reprocessing in the Urals, representing 45% of the total assemblies at the site.
According to Anatoly Grigoriev, who heads up the international projects division of Rosatom, Russia’s state nuclear corporation, the cleanup will continue for another six to seven years.
“Andreyeva Bay has been a daunting task for Norway,” said Per Einar Fiskebek, an advisor to the governor of Tromsø and Finnmark Counties, the Norwegian border region closest to Andreyeva Bay. “It is especially important for us that the work be carried out absolutely safely for the personnel, who have been professionally coping with it even in a pandemic. Norway and Russia are good neighbors with a common border and nature. I can assure you that Norway will remain with Russia until the end, until Andreeva Bay becomes absolutely clean.”
Cracks and contamination
Andreyeva Bay had been piling up spent nuclear submarine fuel for more than two decades when its troubles began in earnest in 1982.
That year, a crack developed in its now-notorious Building 5, a storage pool for thousands of spent fuel assemblies. The ensuing leak threatened to dump a stew of plutonium, uranium and other fission products into Litsa Fjord, fouling the Barents Sea.
The water was drained and the fuel painstakingly moved, but that revealed other problems. The fuel elements from Building 5 needed somewhere to go, so they were rushed into hastily arranged storage facilities that were meant only to be temporary.
Technicians stuffed the fuel elements into three dry storage buildings and cemented them in. The temporary storage solution has now spanned the last 30 years. . Meanwhile the leaking radioactive water contaminated much of the soil around Building 5.
It took the government years to catch up to the problem. In 1995, the Murmansk regional government paid it first visit to the secretive military site and, based on what it saw, shut down its operations. Five years later Moscow finally got involved, taking Andreyeva Bay out of the military’s hands, and giving it to the mainly civilian Ministry of Atomic Energy, now Rosatom.
Rosatom helped create a nuclear waste-handling agency in Murmansk, called SevRAO, to deal with the problem. Yet even in 2000, SevRAO was essentially working from scratch. Rosatom officials noted that there weren’t even documents detailing what waste and fuel was stored where at the site, much less an infrastructure to help safely get rid of it.
Bellona leads the charge
Norway, at Bellona’s urging, led the charge to pitch in.
Finally, in 2001, an enclosure was built over the three storage buildings to prevent further contamination while technicians worked to remove the spent fuel and load it into cases. Roads were built and cranes were brought in. Personnel decontamination posts went up, along with a laboratory complex and power lines.
A host of nations pumped funding into the burgeoning city whose central industry was safely packing up decades of nuclear fuel from Russia’s past nuclear soldiers. Starting in 2003, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Canada and Great Britain, joined by Finland, Denmark, Sweden, and the European Commission pooled resources for a total contribution of $70 million over several years.
But Norway has led the pack by far, contributing some $220 million over the past 20 years toward safely removing Andreyeva Bay’s spend nuclear fuel – a national movement spawned when Bellona published its first report on Northwest Russia’s nuclear hazards in 1996.
“I hope that the system will take care of the future nuclear legacy without waiting for it to be accumulated,” Nikitin told The Independent Barents Observer. “Nuclear and radioactive waste should be dealt with before it reaches a situation as we had in Soviet times.”
As the project continues, Nikitin said he is pleased to see how the work has progressed.
“Bellona started it, and we have to finish it,” he told the portal.
Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker, activists oppose spent nuclear fuel storage facility in Kudankulam

Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker, activists oppose spent nuclear fuel storage facility in Kudankulam, India Today, 4 Oct 21,
Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Speaker M Appavu and activists have opposed the spent fuel storage facility located on the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project site.
Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Speaker M Appavu and several activists have raised objections against the setting up of a spent fuel storage facility on the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project site.
Appavu, who is also the MLA from Radhapuram district, stated that if there is any mishap, southern parts of Tamil Nadu and Kerala will face severe impact and requested the Centre to create the ‘Away From Reactor’ storage facility at the unused Kolar Gold Mines in Karnataka or Thar desert.
“The facility should be located in an area that is uninhabited”, stated Appavu while cautioning about increasing Chinese presence in Sri Lanka posing a threat.
Once Sri Lanka was a friendly nation, now China has a port there and its dominance is increasing with the port being used for military purposes. So, I request the Union government to use the abandoned Kolar mine fields”, said Appavu.
Environmental activist Soundarrajan claimed that the issue is of far more importance as AFR is not the solution here but construction of Deep Geological Repository.
However, to construct a DGR itself will take a minimum of 20 years of study and construction. A DGR must be built in such a way to withstand 24,000 years of geological impact as the amount of time taken for the nuclear waste to decay.
Activists are worried that Kudankulam having 6 nuclear plants and 3 AFR storage would become a ticking bomb and cause a much bigger disaster than Fukushima or Chernobyl………….. https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/tamil-nadu-assembly-speaker-activists-spent-nuclear-fuel-storage-facility-kudankulam-1860534-2021-10-04
-
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






