David versus Goliath: the battle of a small indigenous community against a federal radioactive waste dump.

There are fewer than 500 of them, but they have managed to put a stop to a federal nuclear waste dump project worth several hundred million dollars…
Anne Caroline Desplanques, Journal de Montréal, September 19, 2025, https://tinyurl.com/mwuymkjp
Federal authorities plan to store the remains of the Bécancour nuclear power plant, Gentilly-1, in a dump in Chalk River, on the edge of the drinking water source for millions of Quebecers.
At a time when the Carney government is promoting nuclear power as one of the ways to make Canada an energy superpower, our investigative team has obtained rare access to this ultra-secure complex, which Ottawa wants to hand over to the Americans. We spoke with citizens and experts who are concerned about the environment and the country’s sovereignty.
There are only 365 Anishinabeg living in the tiny Kebaowek First Nation reserve in Abitibi-Témiscamingue. But through their lawyers, they have succeeded in putting a hold on a multi-million-dollar federal radioactive waste dump project on their traditional territory.
In February, the Federal Court ruled that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission had not obtained the free, prior, and informed consent of Indigenous peoples before authorizing the construction of the dump, in violation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
In March, the court determined that the project endangers several species, including the spotted turtle, a threatened species less than 30 centimeters long that lives for about 50 years and reproduces infrequently, as it does not reach sexual maturity until around 20 years of age.
Federal lawyers have appealed both decisions. If they fail to convince the courts, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) will have to go back to the drawing board and resume consultations. In the meantime, the project, called the “near-surface waste management facility,” is on hold.
A geotextile membrane to contain radioactivity
It is intended to be a permanent storage and disposal site for up to one million cubic meters of radioactive waste. The waste will be placed on a layer of clay, sand, and geotextile approximately 1.5 meters thick, and covered with another layer of sand, rock, and a membrane.
This is not enough to protect the environment from PCBs, asbestos, heavy metals, and dozens of radioactive elements that CNSC plans to bury there, fears physicist Ginette Charbonneau of the Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive (Coalition Against Radioactive Pollution).
” Radioactive waste cannot be disposed of, it can only be isolated. For that, you need more than a membrane,” she insists.
CNSC assures that this buried waste will have “low-level” contamination and will therefore no longer pose a danger to the environment and health in 500 years, at the end of the containment cells’ useful life.
A pile of waste
But nuclear chemist Kerry Burns has his doubts. Retired from Atomic Energy of Canada since 2010, he was tasked with analyzing waste from the Chalk River laboratories to determine its radioactive content.
He explains that, in the past, CNL buried tons of waste in the sand, which they now plan to exhume and place in their new landfill. However, there are no records indicating the precise level of contamination, he says, describing a gigantic pile of mixed waste.
The project site has too much risk to leave anything to chance, insists the scientist: the landfill will be only one kilometer from the Ottawa River in sandy, porous soil.
“If the contamination escapes from the cells, it will very quickly find its way into the water, and it will be extremely difficult to measure and stop,” he warns.
Like Ms. Chabonneau, Mr. Burns argues that the materials should be isolated in a deep geological repository far from water sources.
This is the method used by one of the American companies chosen to manage CNL, Amentum: it isolates low-level waste in New Mexico in the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), which has isolation chambers 660 meters underground.
Confusion About a Second Repository for Radioactive Wastes.

From: Stop SMRs Canada , Thu, 18 Sept 2025
In June, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) posted a “discussion paper” outlining their intention to site a second deep geological repository (DGR) for radioactive waste.
The NWMO announcement of an additional DGR has caused confusion. MPs are having trouble keeping the story straight among the various nuclear waste schemes. Already constituents are receiving letters from MPs that clearly confuse the two, which puts MPs’ credibility on the line, as well further reducing public trust in the nuclear industry.
The latest NWMO DGR proposal is for a mix of “intermediate level” radioactive and – as an add on – high-level radioactive waste from future reactors.
The NWMO, a collaboration between the provincial utilities that generate and own the high-level nuclear fuel waste produced by nuclear reactors, has a mandate under the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act (2002) to develop an option to manage the highly-radioactive nuclear fuel waste long-term.
The NWMO’s June 2025 paper is purportedly premised on the “Integrated Strategy for Radioactive Waste” which they proposed to the federal government in 2023.
Making a careful distinction between government policy and industry strategy, the Minister of Natural Resources had acknowledged the nuclear industry’s proposed strategy for low and intermediate level wastes, framing the proposed strategy as one of “two fundamental recommendations” (the other related to low level wastes). The Minister summarized the plan thus: “Intermediate-level waste and non-fuel high-level waste will be disposed of in a deep geological repository with implementation by the NWMO.”
However, over the last 18 months the NWMO has increasingly been adding to the proposed DGR mix the high-level waste fuel waste from future small modular reactors and from the mega-reactors proposed for both the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station in southwestern Ontario and the Peace River area in Alberta.
The siting process for the DGR for high-level waste was extremely divisive and since the selection of the Revell site in northwestern Ontario in November 2024 there has been rising opposition and now a legal challenge from a nearby First Nation. The new DGR proposal promises more of the same divisiveness, opposition, and political pressures.
Plutonium, Public Money and a Perilous Nuclear Dump on the Lake District Coast, a Letter to Cumberland Council’s “Nuclear Issues Board”

By mariannewildart, https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2025/09/19/plutonium-public-money-and-a-perilous-nuclear-dump-on-the-lake-district-coast-a-letter-to-cumberland-councils-nuclear-issues-board/
Sent by Email 19th September 2025
For consideration by the Nuclear Issues Board
of Cumberland Council on Monday 22nd Sept 2025
Dear Nuclear Issues Board of Cumberland Council,
On 14 October 2021, Copeland Borough Council’s Executive of just four councillors took the decision to establish two Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) Community Partnerships in accordance with the UK Government’s “GDF siting process”
West Cumbria is predictably the only consideration by NWS as a potential site for a GDF (also known as a nuclear waste dump for the abandonment of high level wastes).
A lot has changed since those four Copeland councillors put forward the Lake District coast as a sacrifice zone for the UK’s nuclear waste geological disposal plan.
We urge the Nuclear Issues Board to exercise their democratic duty and call for a debate by the Full Cumberland Council and a Full vote before going any further in the partnership with Nuclear Waste Services for delivery of a very deep, very hot and very experimental nuclear waste dump for high level wastes.
There is no democratic mandate to continue in partnership with Nuclear Waste Services in delivery of a GDF for the following reasons:
Community Unwillingness.
Despite the ongoing Community Partnership funding, Millom Town Council and Whicham Parish Council have both withdrawn from the South Copeland Community Partnership. Whicham PC also held a parish poll that clearly indicated a 77% majority against the GDF . Millom Without Parish Council will be consulting its parishioners on withdrawal. An external review of the SCCP also found the Partnership to be totally dysfunctional with infighting between community representatives and NWS staff.
The Community of Seascale within the Mid-Copeland Community Partnership have also voiced opposition. Seascale Parish Council talked about GDF’s potential area of focus for Headworks and were shown a map of a potential area for Seascale: “as a Parish Council we rejected the proposal as it was not suitable for Seascale at all, but there needs to be more that just our voice, attached is a map of the proposed Headworks location for Seascale.. We encourage residents to attend these events with GDF and voice their concerns too.
” It is ironic, given the above, that one of the Copeland (now Cumberland) councillors who took the delegated decision to ‘volunteer’ the West Cumbrian coastline once again into the nuclear dump plan is Vice chair of Seascale Parish Council.
It is clear that previous geological work, public inquiries and Cumbria County Council resolutions on this subject are being ignored in order to proceed with a clearly unwanted, expensive, ultimately public money and time wasting project once more, casting known and unknown blight on communities for decades to come. As Martin Lowe of Close Capenhurst has observed “Cumberland Council have a duty of care to the public which this development flies in the face of.”
Increase of the mine footprint from 25km2 to 36km2 since Copeland Executive volunteered the Lake District coast.
Initially NWS literature stated that the mine footprint would be 25km2. A letter to Lakes Against Nuclear Dump from Nuclear Waste Services states that the footprint would now be 36km2 (or larger).
Increase in heat of the “thermal footprint” of the GDF from 100 degrees c to 200 degrees c.
100 degrees c is the maximum heat “allowed” to try to ensure integrity of the bentonite buffer (clay slurry to be pumped into the mine as backfill and to delay leakage), however the thermal footprint has been increased to 200 degrees c as confirmed in a letter to Lakes Against Nuclear Dump from Nuclear Waste Services.
Inclusion of Plutonium along with High Level Wastes.
The inclusion of plutonium for burial in a GDF is a new, experimental and dangerous concept. There are unresolved (and likely unresolvable) difficulties of containing the radiotoxic nature and criticality of plutonium in a geological disposal facility.
“The problems of criticality and toxicity to the biosphere essentially come down to water—it creates the conditions for potential criticality and provides the transport mechanism for plutonium’s toxicity.” (Plutonium—the complex and ‘forever’ radiotoxic element of nuclear waste. How exactly should we manage its containment? Nick Scarr 22/08/25).
Top geologists call the plan “dangerous”
– this is why…
Professor Stuart Haszeldine, Professor of Carbon Capture and Storage, School of Geosciences Edinburgh Climate Change Institute said: “Making waste into specialised solid compounds can help to become more resistant to dissolution in groundwater. But the heat generated from the radioactive decay of isotopes is not affected by that re-engineering. Adding material which may heat to 100-200C is a huge disruption and will undoubtedly change the pathways of groundwater flow. This is like having an electric kettle containing stable stationary water and then turning on the electricity to add heat – the water soon circulates and if heating continues, the water boils.”
Professor Haszeldine added: “Have the developers actually made computer predictions of these effects in this GDF? Because plutonium has isotopes which can last for thousands of years, it may be sensible to spread that through the GDF to minimise heating – but that will make predictions of containment in circulating hot water much more difficult. It’s perfectly reasonable to think of a 150C-200C heat source at 0.5km, producing a geyser of boiling water intermittently erupting at surface temperatures above boiling.”
The spread of this increased temperature, known as a thermal pulse, would be conducted through the rock over several thousand years. With the additional pressure of water column above the GDF (a hypothetical 500m below the surface), water would boil at the higher temperature of 250C, in which case superheated steam may also occur. There is currently no guarantee that the maximum heat of the GDF will remain at 200C.
Even a 1.0C increase in ocean water [ii]can cause ‘massive impacts’ on the health of sea life and contribute to marine desertification, including loss of biodiversity, collapse of fisheries, and accelerated climate change. The proposed GDF is planned to be at least 37 km3, a substantial section of seabed under the Irish Sea, in a Marine Protected Area. Similar to nature reserves or SSSIs, Marine Protected Areas are parts of the ocean established to protect habitats, species and healthy, functioning marine ecosystems. Professor Haszeldine pointed out that seeps of warm or hot waterfrom a GDF onto the seabed are unlikely to stabilise, repair, and rewild the natural seabed ecosystems.
Professor David K. Smythe, Emeritus Professor of Geophysics, University of Glasgow, said he agreed with Professor Haszeldine about the danger of trying to bury High Level Waste, whether it was conditioned or not. “The waste should be kept on the surface of the earth, and immobilised beyond any possibility of re-use, until a proper long-term solution is found.”
For all these reasons and many more, thousands of people including hundreds of Cumbrians have signed a pettion calling for the full Cumberland Council to debate and vote before going any further in the partnership with Nuclear Waste Services for delivery of an experimental and uniquely dangerous plan to abandon nuclear wastes.
We urge the Nuclear Issues Board to exercise their democratic duty and call for a full debate and vote by Cumberland Council. Currently there is no democratic mandate to continue with the GDF “process” without at least carrying out a full debate and full vote by all Cumberland Councillors
Yours sincerely,
Marianne Birkby, Lakes Against Nuclear Dump, a Radiation Free Lakeland campaign
Richard Outram, Secretary of the UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLAs)
Construction starts of Belgian disposal facility
Belgium’s Prime Minister Bart De Wever has laid a foundation stone,
marking the start of construction of a surface disposal facility for low-
and intermediate-level, short-lived waste at the Dessel site in Belgium.
The facility will consist of several concrete bunkers that will house large
concrete vaults in which short-lived low- and intermediate-level waste will
have been encapsulated with mortar. Currently, 28,831 vaults are planned,
spread across two zones: 20 bunkers in the first and 14 in the second. The
Dessel facility will house all Belgian low- and intermediate-level,
short-lived radioactive waste including that from nuclear power plants,
hospitals, research institutes and the decommissioning of nuclear
facilities. Currently, this waste is managed by national radioactive waste
management agency ONDRAF/NIRAS’s industrial subsidiary Belgoprocess in
several dedicated buildings on the Dessel site.
World Nuclear News 19th Sept 2025, https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/construction-starts-of-belgian-disposal-facility
Two down: Whicham joins Millom in withdrawing from undemocratic and discredited community partnership
In a show of defiance, Whicham Parish Council last week voted unanimously
to withdraw from the South Copeland GDF Community Partnership, joining
Millom Town Council in saying no to further collaboration with plans to
bring a nuclear waste dump to Haverigg and Millom.
Meanwhile at Millom
Without Parish Council, Chair Councillor Carl Carrington has resigned as
the Council’s representative, with the Council resolving in July that
Parish Councillors should take it in turns to attend future Community
Partnership meetings on a ‘rotational basis’. Millom Town Council,
Whicham Parish Council and Millom Without Parish Council, along with the
Friends of the Lake District and Sustainable Duddon, have also submitted a
statement ‘rebutting the NWS report on the Partnership’. This refers to
the report published following the external review conducted by the former
Chair of the now defunct Allerdale GDF Community Partnership, in which the
South Copeland GDF Community Partnership was described as
‘dysfunctional’.
Whicham Parish Council’s decision to withdraw from
the community partnership does not derail the process. Unlike Cumberland
Council, neither Whicham nor Millom are deemed to be Relevant Principal
Local Authorities and so cannot exercise the Right to Withdraw. But the
decisions of Millom and Whicham to withdraw, that of Millom Without to
cease to have a permanent representative, and the collective condemnatory
response to the external review all represent clear signals that local
elected representatives no longer wish to be associated with a discredited
project.
NFLA 9th Sept 2025, https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/two-down-whicham-joins-millom-in-withdrawing-from-undemocratic-and-discredited-community-partnership/
Project 2025 agenda revives Nevada’s Yucca Mountain fears

By Judy Treichel, Thursday, Aug. 21, 2025, https://lasvegassun.com/news/2025/aug/21/project-2025-agenda-revives-nevadas-yucca-mountain/ Judy Treichel is the executive director of the Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force.
A meeting was held in Las Vegas last month, paid for by a Department of Energy grant and hosted by Mothers for Nuclear and Native Nuclear .
The host groups tried to put a friendlier slant on the DOE message, but it was clear that the government and commercial nuclear industry have never gotten out of the rut they have been in from the start: advertise the glory of nuclear power and never get very far into the problem of what to do with the waste.
The purpose of the invitation-only event was to “elicit public feedback on consent-based siting and management of spent nuclear fuel…”
But my takeaway was that they hoped to get the audience to love new nuclear power more than we hate its waste.
The presenters sang the praises of nuclear power and shared frustration with many audience members about how the public was frightened of or opposed to nuclear power after watching “The Simpsons” on TV! There was a brief mention of the disastrous events at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, but the impression left was that those were now over and that current public fears arose from “The Simpsons”!
Thirty years ago, the DOE was a huge presence in Nevada, studying Yucca Mountain 80 miles northwest of downtown Las Vegas, as the site for underground disposal of the nation’s high-level nuclear waste. Public meetings at that time brought out many longtime residents who related stories about the damage older family members or friends had suffered from widespread exposure to radiation from nuclear weapons testing at the Nevada Test Site. They described how they had been lied to about safety and how there was a lack of accountability for human and property damage. They wanted no part of any future nuclear experiments, be it nuclear power plants or a disposal site for the nation’s high-level nuclear waste.
The Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal program was determined to be “unworkable” by the Energy secretary in 2010. It has remained unfunded by Congress since then, but it has not been terminated by law.
When the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 became public, my colleagues and I were dismayed when we saw the recommendation to resume licensing the “unworkable” Yucca Mountain project. It was as if a switch could be flipped and the site’s safety flaws and the long-enduring opposition of Nevadans could be ignored.
Independent scientists determined that Yucca Mountain could not isolate the dangerous radiation for the long time period necessary. Those findings are reflected in the more than 200 contentions filed by Nevada that would have to be adjudicated during any future licensing proceeding.
Project 2025 would give us two unwanted nuclear-related gifts: a nuclear waste repository and a restart to nuclear weapons testing, side by side! The assurances we heard from the DOE at those long-ago meetings were that it had learned lessons during weapons testing. The DOE claimed that safety comes first now. But I’m not so sure.
Were Project 2025’s nuclear goals to be realized, there would be an operating repository at Yucca Mountain. It would have above-ground facilities and a decadeslong national nuclear waste transportation campaign flowing into Nevada on a currently nonexistent 200-plus-milelong rail access corridor to the repository site. Next door would be ground-blasting nuclear weapons testing. and flying over both of those operations would be the training and testing of military planes and drones from Creech Air Force Base. This would surely be a dangerous and untenable combination.
Project 2025 was not friendly to Southern Nevada. In addition to its calls for increased use of nuclear power, it also calls for — and President Donald Trump has largely followed through on — removing federal government support and incentives for solar power. This is shortsighted, as rooftop solar shades the underlying buildings while generating power and drastically reduces the power bills of consumers. Perhaps most importantly, solar power generation does not leave a legacy of lethal waste.
The Department of Energy was right 16 years ago when it announced that a national high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain was unworkable. It still is. Convention attendees and visitors come to our great hotels and meeting venues. Nuclear waste shipments on the railroad tracks behind the hotels and through our downtown area may make some of that business choose other locations. If there was any sort of accident or incident on the tracks within Clark County, the national news services would blast out the images far and wide, and economic damage would occur whether there was radiation released or not.
Las Vegas has a fragile economy, and it is highly dependent on fun and enjoyment. We are becoming a major sports destination, continuing to be home to important conventions and putting on the best shows in the world. We must find ways to make our precious resources available for the worthwhile activities we have, with no backdrop of dreaded nuclear contamination and waste. We need to apply a compatibility test that honors our past and preserves our future.
The Nuclear Waste Problem Haunting UK Energy Expansion
Oil Price, By Felicity Bradstock – Sep 07, 2025
Effective nuclear waste management is a critical global challenge, particularly for countries like the UK looking to expand their nuclear power sectors.- The UK has a substantial amount of existing radioactive waste and is struggling to implement a long-term disposal solution, with the proposed underground geological disposal facility facing significant hurdles and cost concerns.
- Public and local community pushback against potential nuclear waste sites further complicates the development of new disposal facilities, making finding a solution an ongoing and difficult process.
One of the biggest hurdles to expanding the global nuclear power sector is the concern over how best to manage nuclear waste. While some believe they have found sustainable solutions to dispose of nuclear waste, there is still widespread debate around how safe these methods are and the potential long-term impact of waste disposal and storage. In the United Kingdom, the government has put nuclear power back on the agenda, after decades with no new nuclear developments; however, managing nuclear waste continues to be a major barrier to development.
There are three types of nuclear waste: low-, intermediate-, and high-level radioactive waste. Most of the waste produced at nuclear facilities is lightly contaminated, including items such as tools and work clothing, with a level of around 1 percent radioactivity. Meanwhile, spent fuel is an example of high-level waste, which contributes around 3 percent of the total volume of waste from nuclear energy production. However, this contains around 95 percent of the radioactivity, making adequate waste management of these products extremely important.
In the U.K., the government continues to battle with how best to dispose of its nuclear waste,……………………………………………..
the U.K. Treasury believes the government’s plan for the waste dump is “unachievable”, rating the project as “red”, or not possible, in a recent assessment. ……………………………….. https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/The-Nuclear-Waste-Problem-Haunting-UK-Energy-Expansion.html
Nuclear industry says waste site is key
Jason Arunn Murugesu, BBC News, North East and Cumbria, 6 Sept 25
A functioning nuclear waste site is “key to the credibility and sustainability” of the UK’s nuclear programme, the nuclear industry has said.
Two area in Cumbria have been identified as possible locations for a geological disposal facility (GDF) by government body Nuclear Waste Services (NWS).
Sellafield in Cumbria holds the world’s largest stockpile of radioactive plutonium. Earlier this year the government said the material would be made ready for permanent disposal deep underground and put “beyond reach”.
The Nuclear Industry Association (NIA) said: “A functioning GDF is key to the credibility and sustainability of the UK’s nuclear programme.”
“Developers need confidence that the back end of the fuel cycle is being responsibly and sustainably managed, not just for regulatory compliance but also to secure investor confidence and public trust.”
The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) said any potential GDF site would be subject to agreement with the community and “won’t be imposed on an area without local consent”.
The NIA also said it strongly supported this “partnership” approach.
Mid Copeland and south Copeland in Cumbria are the only two sites in the UK currently being considered by the government to host a nuclear waste disposal site.
A recent report by the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (Nista) said the GDF’s overall expected costs of between £20bn and £53bn would make it “unaffordable”.
£154m plan hatched to move UK’s 140-tonne cache of powdered plutonium from nuclear reactor waste at Sellafield.

Britain could finally solve the problem of
what to do with its radioactive waste by converting it into ceramic
pellets, The Telegraph can reveal. Government scientists want to store the
radioactive plutonium, which is a national security risk because it can be
used to make nuclear weapons, in an underground nuclear graveyard. The
UK’s cache of 140 tonnes of powdered plutonium from nuclear reactor waste
is currently under armed guard at Sellafield in Cumbria.
Telegraph 28th Aug 2025 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/08/28/britain-solution-radioactive-waste-problem-cumbria/
Memorial unveiled at former RAF airbase threatened by nuke waste dump
NFLA Secretary Richard Outram was proud recently to participate in a
ceremony (31 August) at which a new memorial was unveiled to honour the
service of the many personnel once based at a Second World War RAF airbase
which may become the preferred site for a nuclear waste dump. The timing is
particularly poignant for, whilst once RAF Millom fought off an attack by a
Luftwaffe bomber, the former airfield now faces a graver threat from nearer
home. At the end of January, Nuclear Waste Services designated that part of
the airfield not occupied by His Majesty’s Prison Haverigg as its primary
Area of Focus in the South Copeland GDF Search Area. This could be the
future location for a surface facility that would receive nuclear waste
shipments as part of the plan to establish a Geological Disposal Facility.
NFLA 2nd Sept 2025,
https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/memorial-unveiled-at-former-raf-airbase-threatened-by-nuke-waste-dump/
Government ‘replanning’ £53.3bn geological disposal facility project

“Successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable. “There are major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable.”
02 Sep, 2025 By Tom Pashby
Government ‘replanning’ £53.3bn geological disposal facility project.
Construction of a UK geological disposal facility (GDF) for long-term
nuclear waste disposal is being “replanned” after recent revelations
about its cost and deliverability, according to the government.
A GDF represents a monumental undertaking, consisting of an engineered vault placed between 200m and 1km underground, covering an area of approximately 1km2 on the surface. This facility is designed to safely contain nuclear waste while allowing it to decay over thousands of years, thereby reducing its radioactivity and associated hazards.
The National Infrastructure and
Service Transformation Authority (Nista), a Treasury unit, assessed the GDF
in its Nista Annual Report 2024-2025 and gave it a Red rating in Delivery
Confidence Assessment. This means: “Successful delivery of the project
appears to be unachievable. “There are major issues with project
definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery, which at
this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable. The project may
need re-scoping and/or its overall viability reassessed.” In addition,
the Nista annual report lists the “whole life cost” of the GDF as
£20bn as a mid-range assessment and £53.3bn as a high-end assessment.
Government says GDF project facing ‘replanning’ by NDA, but remains
necessary
New Civil Engineer 2nd Sept 2025, https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/government-replanning-53-3bn-geological-disposal-facility-project-02-09-2025/
Sizewell C Funded Decommissioning Programme: Contingent Liability (Public on the hook)

I am pleased to have laid a departmental minute describing the contingent
liabilities arising from the signing of the funded decommissioning
programme and Government support package for Sizewell C. The funded
decommissioning programme at Sizewell C will be funded via the regulated
asset base. The regulated asset base contains a series of protections that
aim to minimise the risk that public funds will be required to meet
decommissioning costs.
However, in certain remote circumstances whereby all
the protections afforded by Sizewell C’s economic licence fall away or a
shortfall in the fund materialises, public funds could be used to
contribute towards decommissioning costs and this liability would
crystalise. Based on best estimates by the Government Actuary Department,
the maximum potential exposure from the liability is £12 billion—in 2022
terms. This has been estimated on a worse-case scenario whereby the
Government were required to meet the full costs of decommissioning the
Sizewell C power plant.
Hansard 1st Sept 2025, https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-09-01/debates/25090137000015/SizewellCFundedDecommissioningProgrammeContingentLiability
Assessment of Asse storage chamber conditions begins

Tuesday, 19 August 2025, https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/assessment-of-asse-storage-chamber-conditions-begins
An exploratory borehole is providing the first indications of the condition of the stored drums containing radioactive waste within Storage Chamber 12 at the former Asse II salt mine in the district of Wolfenbüttel, Lower Saxony, Germany.
Between 1967 and 1978, thousands of barrels of mostly low-level radioactive waste were emplaced in a total of 13 former mining chambers at the Asse II mine on behalf of the federal government. However, the facility has proven unstable and retrieval of the waste has been legally mandated since 2013.
Germany’s Federal Company for Radioactive Waste Disposal (BGE) has announced it “made significant progress” in its preparations for the retrieval of radioactive waste from the Asse II mine at the beginning of August.
“Through a tennis ball-sized hole, we were able to take a look into Storage Chamber 12 for the first time in decades,” said Iris Graffunder, Chair of the Management Board of BGE. “Our first impression is that at least the visible barrels are in good condition. Now we will find out the exact composition of the chamber atmosphere and measure the activity levels in the chamber. For this, we need more space and will have to expand the borehole.”
Storage Chamber 12 contains 7,464 containers, including 6,747 drums and 717 so-called ‘lost concrete shields’ (drums encased in concrete). The containers were stacked horizontally. Storage took place in 1973 and 1974. The eventual formation of a sump containing contaminated solution in the access area to this storage chamber led, among other things, to the Asse II mine being placed under nuclear law in 2009.
Storage Chamber 12 is one of the highest radon emitters in the Asse II mine. At the end of May 2024, miners began the targeted drilling into the chamber under the highest radiation protection standards. At a depth of 750 metres, a borehole about 117 metres long was drilled to access the chamber. On 6 August, radiation protection measurements during drilling showed elevated radon levels, indicating that the chamber had been reached.
A planned gas measurement will reveal the composition of the chamber atmosphere and the factors that influence it. Further geological exploration is also underway. Preliminary investigations revealed that the chamber ceiling was deeper than expected. The first images from the chamber confirm these radar and magnetic measurements. A planned 3D scan is intended to provide a more complete picture of the emplacement chamber.
All of the measured values obtained will be utilised in the further planning of retrieval and in future licensing procedures. Among other things, they will allow BGE to determine which recovery technologies can be used in Storage Chamber 12.
BGE – a federally owned company within the remit of the Federal Environment Ministry – took over responsibility as operator of the Asse II mine and the Konrad and Morsleben repositories from the Federal Office for Radiation Protection in April 2017. It is also tasked with searching for a repository site to dispose of the high-level radioactive waste generated in Germany on the basis of the Site Selection Act that came into force in May 2017.
According to current planning, retrieval of the radioactive waste stored in Asse II is scheduled to begin in 2033. Currently, costs of about EUR4.7 billion (USD5.5 billion) are expected until retrieval begins, including the costs of keeping the mine open and implementing the emergency planning precautions. The costs for retrieval, interim storage, and final disposal after 2033 have not been taken into account.
‘Nuclear Priests’ could warn future people about wastes under the Irish Sea

When Sir Keir Starmer entered No 10 last summer, it did not take long for
him to pick up where his predecessors left off on delivering more nuclear
power stations with a promise to “build, baby, build”. The Prime
Minister has vowed to “fast forward on nuclear” and so far has stuck
true to his word, with the Government taking up a larger stake in the
Sizewell C power plant in Suffolk, while loosening planning rules to allow
new small modular reactors to be built across the country.
But with the push for more nuclear power, bringing with it a steady supply of low-carbon energy, the question is inevitably asked: what do you do with all the
nuclear waste?
The answer is to dig a hole nearly the size of Wembley
Stadium 1km down beneath the Irish Sea, that could one day see the rise of
a new “atomic priesthood” and even, some have jokingly claimed, the
creation of glow in the dark cats.
But policymakers are aware that to push
ahead with this new nuclear drive, they will need to develop a stable,
long-term storage facility in which to hold not just future nuclear waste,
but all the nuclear waste the country has produced since the dawn of the
nuclear energy age in the 1950s. This is what the proposed Geological
Disposal Facility will provide.
And when they say long term, they mean long
term. “The purpose of the facility is to keep the radioactivity away from
humans and the environment so that it can’t cause harm for a sufficient
period of time – and that’s of the order of a few hundred thousand
years,” Neil Hyatt, Chief Scientific Adviser at the Nuclear Waste
Services, tells The i Paper.
iNews 24th Aug 2025, https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/nuclear-priests-glowing-cats-how-warn-future-generations-atomic-danger-3875319
Wastewater release from Fukushima nuclear plant enters third year.

By Ian Stark, Aug. 25 (UPI) —
The Japanese utility that keeps the nuclear fuel inside the damaged Fukushima plant cool reports its release of treated wastewater has entered its third year.
The Tokyo Electric Power Company announced Monday that it has completed its third discharge of Advanced Liquid Processing System treated water into the sea on Monday…………………
According to TEPCO, the ALPS is designed to remove 62 types of radioactive materials from the affected sea and dilute the water to lower the tritium levels. The water is considered “treated” to distinguish it from water yet to be decontaminated…………………………..
Around 70 tons of radioactive wastewater is produced daily at the plant, which cools the nuclear fuel that melted inside the reactor buildings at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. As of the first week of August, around 102,000 tons of treated water have been released. https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2025/08/25/Japan-Fukushima-nuclear-wastewater-TEPCO-radioactive/9871756140747/
-
Archives
- June 2026 (109)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
-
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



