Decommissioning aging nuclear reactors
nixing nukes
The Wire by Matt Kanner Friday, 28 August 2009
Russian activists discuss nuclear plant decommissioning in Portsmouth
Few people are as familiar with the inherent complications of shutting down nuclear power plants as Oleg Bodrov. In 2002, the Russian nuclear engineer-physicist was attacked while walking home from his office. He suffered a serious head injury and spent weeks in the hospital.Bodrov believes the attack was motivated by his activism against a Russian plant that was re-smelting radioactive metal. Continue reading
Malaysia: where would we put nuclear waste?
Where do we store nuclear waste?
The Sun2 Surf , Malaysia 27 August 09
THE sun has been the main energy source for all life on the planet for billions of years. In Malaysia, we are blessed with sunlight. Yet, our government is pushing for nuclear energy as if it is a safe energy alternative to save our planet from the perils of climate change.
The government seems to be brushing aside the hazards related to nuclear power plants, as if they were issues that didn’t exist or could easily be remedied in the near future………………….
From what I have seen, there is no detailed information available to the public on Malaysia’s nuclear plans. Where will the reactors be located? What type of reactors will be used? Who will be selling us the uranium to run the reactors? How much will it all cost and who will pay for it?
What about the waste generated from the proposed nuclear power plants? Where and how will Malaysia dispose its nuclear waste which remains radioactive for thousands of years…………….
….we do know that nuclear energy will produce highly radioactive waste, even if it is in small amounts, every day a nuclear plant is running. We do know that this highly radioactive waste must be disposed of somewhere on our finite planet. We do know that we have no technology to make this waste safe.
And as more countries build nuclear power plants, more of this waste is dumped into our Earth, the planet that sustains our lives.
It is unforgivable that we, as governments and responsible adults, knowingly create such dangerous waste, so that we can have “modern conveniences” today, without a concern for tomorrow.
We are already leaving our children with our legacy of global warming, and choking pollution. And now we wish to leave this massive mess of nuclear waste and closed reactor sites to our grandchildren, leaving them with the burden of trying to figure out how to solve the problem that we ourselves had no idea how to solve.
Russia’s nuclear legacy
Bowermaster’s Adventures — Russia’s nuclear legacy
Gadling.comby Jon Bowermaster
Aug 24th 2009
Just around the corner from Petropavlovsk, ten miles by land or sea, located across Avachinskaya Bay on a small peninsula called Krasheninnikova sits Russia’s largest nuclear submarine base. It is off limits to outsiders and a shell of what it was during the Soviet Union’s heyday. Today – judging by a simple Google map search – there are just a half-dozen active nuclear subs sitting at its docks. Worrying to those who pay attention to such things are the shadows on the far edge of the docks on the same map, indicating somewhere between a dozen and twenty subs piled up next to each other. They are said to be at varying degrees of decommissioning………………….
The operation of nuclear-powered submarines generates considerable amounts of nuclear waste. Liquid and solid radioactive wastes need to be removed from submarines and stored. In addition, periodically the submarine needs to be refueled, thus spent fuel needs to be removed from the submarine and also stored. Decommissioning a nuclear submarine generates these streams of waste and in addition, the refueled reactor compartment must be dealt with…………………This is from a U.S. State Department report: “In Russia every step of the process is facing problems. The support complex which was already in poor shape and accident-prone during Soviet times has been particularly burdened in the last few years. Shore-side waste sites are full of low-level radioactive waste and spent fuel. Shipments of the spent fuel for reprocessing have been delayed due to lack of funds and equipment. The service ships, which unload the spent fuel from submarines, are also full and in poor shape (and some have suffered accidents).
The shipyards where the work is done are facing financial shortages, power blackouts and strikes. There are no final land-based storage sites for decommissioned reactor compartments removed from submarines, so they are being stored afloat in bays near naval bases. Finally, contamination is widespread at waste storage sites in the North and Far East due to accidents. Lower-level contamination is thought to plague virtually every support facility for the fleet. In addition, accidents on submarines have lead to contamination of the surrounding area.
Bowermaster’s Adventures — Russia’s nuclear legacy | Gadling.com
Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump plan is being killed off
Yucca Mountain funding nears its demise
Government Executive By Darren Goode Congress Daily August 21, 2009
House and Senate Democrats are well on their way to helping the Obama administration kill Nevada’s Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.Both chambers have approved fiscal 2010 Energy and Water Appropriations bills that match the administration’s $197 million request to let the Energy Department officially keep the project open on paper for a year while funding Energy Secretary Stephen Chu’s blue ribbon panel to develop an alternative plan for storing and managing nuclear waste.
The current 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste are held in temporary surface storage facilities at 131 sites in 39 states.
Yucca Mountain funding nears its demise (8/21/09) — www.GovernmentExecutive.com
Sellafield nuclear waste: Cumbrian Council doesn’t want it
(UK) Nuclear waste sites set for thumbs down
Charlie, The Whitehaven News 20 August 09
Why do Sellafield want to store their waste in other peoples back yards? If it safe to be stored at Lillyhall then why not dig a big hole on the site of the old reactors? If waste is contained within a defined site it will not give surprises to future generations when the paperwork has been mislaid. This is proved by the problems over what is stored at Drigg. If we can’t trust them to keep track of dangerous waste for fifty years how can we expect them to know what is buried in hundreds of years to come.
The Whitehaven News by Alan Irving 20 August 09
TWO local sites earmarked for radioactive waste disposal are set to get the thumbs down from Cumbria County Council even though one – at Lillyhall – has already taken small amounts.
Cabinet councillors next week are expected to approve a recommendation that the low level radioactive waste is kept at Sellafield rather than sent to Keekle Head or Lillyhall…………
……………..yesterday Councillor Knowles said: “Sellafield waste should be dealt with at Sellafield. What we don’t want is a proliferation of radioactive waste, it should not be put in holes around West Cumbria and imposed on people.” At Keekle Head, French company subsidiary Endecom is already drilling boreholes to see whether it will be suitable. It also has an agreement to buy the derelict 173-acre site……………………
Consultations on the national strategy to manage future arisings of waste will close on September 11. Cabinet members will consider a county council response on the lines that “LLW produced at Sellafield should be disposed of near to Sellafield and should not be dispersed in sites further afield in West Cumbria.”
Whiitehaven News | News | Nuclear waste sites set for thumbs down
Nuclear power in India: a long string of mishaps and deception
Indian N. proliferation remains unchecked
Sultan M Hali
Pakistan Observer 15 August 09
A decade ago, a nine-month long AERB (Atomic Energy Regulatory Board) safety study of Indian reactors documented more than 130 extremely serious safety issues warranting urgent corrective measures in the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre; Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR); Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited; Uranium Corporation of India Limited: Indian Rare Earths Limited; Nuclear Fuel Complex (NFC), and the Heavy Water Board. Cirus, 40 MW has history of developing radiation leaks. Candu reactors suffering from massive leakage of heavy water.
Waste tanks at BARC habitually develop major leaks. Dhruva suffers from design problems, fuel leakages. The Fast Breeder Test Reactor of 40 MW at Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Kalpakkam, built with French assistance, was rated ‘not safe’, and discarded. Similar reactors, like Super Phoenix of France and Monju of Japan, were also discarded because of safety hazards. A brief look at its power plants reveals the following discrepancies: Madras Atomic Power Station (MAPS) 1986—The inlets of its reactors cracked. 1988—MAPS was shut down after heavy water leaked. 1991—Tons of heavy water burst out, had frequent break downs. Rajasthan Atomic Power Plants (RAPP), Rawatbhat. Suffers from severe design faults. Reactors de-rated from 220 MW to 100 MW. Shut down number of times from 1980 to 1994 due to cracks.
Narora Atomic Power Station (NAPS). On March 1993, a fire in NAPS, 180 km east of New Delhi, nearly caused a melt-down. Kakrapar Atomic Power Plants (KAPP), Gujarat – Unsafeguarded. The radiation leakages from the plants are a usual practice. Concrete containment dome of KAPS collapsed in 1994. Tarapur Atomic Power Plants (TAPP), Maharashtra. A high dosage of iodine was found in seawater around.
In 1995, the radioactive waste contaminated the water supply of nearly 3000 villagers living nearby. Russian VVER Light Water Reactors. The potential radiation leakage remains a high probability. IAEA has expressed doubts about the safety of these plants. Nuclear Fuel Complex, Hyderabad (NFC). None of facilities at NFC are under IAEA safeguards…………….
The list of Indian nuclear scientists involved in cases of proliferation is endless. Some prominent cases are enumerated: Oct 2003. An Indian Sitaram Rai Mahadevan arrested for sending blueprints of specialized valves, a critical part for nuclear plants to North Korea. 2004. Rabinder Singh, director RAW fled to US with sensitive documents. Dr Y S R Parsad helped Iran in building nuclear power plants. Dr C Surrender helped in transferring missile technology to Iran. Dr Mahesh and Mr. Panth helped Iran in enrichment technology of Uranium………….
http://pakobserver.net/200908/15/Articles03.asp
Overcoming Nuclear Power’s Biggest Hurdle
Nuclear Power’s biggest hurdle
Strategy and Business 4 August 09 Nuclear power supporters had long hoped that the solution to the nuclear waste problem could be found in a storage facility hollowed out of Yucca Mountain, deep in the Nevada desert roughly 80 miles north of Las Vegas.But questions about Yucca’s long-term ability to keep radioactivity from leeching into groundwater energized nuclear opponents, as well as nearby residents and Nevada political leaders.
Soon after taking office, President Obama defunded the project.Pending another solution, the roughly 60,000 tons of nuclear fuel waste currently in the U.S. is stored on-site at nuclear plants, either in subsurface canisters or in secure “ponds” filled with boric acid.
If this approach continues much longer, it could cost Washington a lot of money: Utilities have successfully sued the federal government for failing to provide a permanent storage solution after they ponied up roughly US$30 billion in fees paid over several years to fund the Yucca project.
Indeed, untangling the nuclear waste problem may be more a matter of economics than of location.
Rebranding nuclear waste fools nobody
Greenpeace 4 August 09
Nuclear waste has undergone an image makeover recently. Indeed, the industry is working hard to ensure that the most dangerous kind of nuclear waste isn’t even called nuclear waste any more. It’s now called ‘spent fuel’.
Sounds much friendlier, doesn’t it? Doesn’t make all the nasty problems associated with the nuclear waste that comes out of reactors disappear but giving something horrible a nice name helps to stop people thinking about those nasty problems. It why we call civilians killed in wars ‘collateral damage’ and why genocide gets called ‘ethnic cleansing’.
The issue of we do with this nuclear waste – sorry, spent fuel – has also had a splash of greenwash. There’s been a big push to rebrand nuclear waste reprocessing as recycling. We don’t reprocess nuclear waste any more – we ‘recycle spent fuel’. Isn’t that nice? Sounds green and environmentally friendly, doesn’t it? Nothing in the actual process has changed and we’re still left with the dangerous by-products but it sounds so much better.
So, now nuclear power has successfully rebadged* itself as not-nasty and environmentally friendly, surely it’s been warmly accepted as a renewable energy source?
The International Renewable Energy Agency (Irena) will not back programmes to develop nuclear energy due to the waste it produces and the risks it presents […] ‘Irena will not support nuclear energy programmes because it’s a long complicated process, it produces waste and is relatively risky,’ Helene Pelosse, director general of Irena, told Reuters in a telephone interview from the French Alps.
The Health Costs of U.S. Nuclear Weapons
The Costs of U.S. Nuclear Weapons
mil.news.sohu.com 29 July 09……………….Environmental and Health Costs
“…………..one great irony of the Cold War is that although the United States produced nuclear weapons en masse to destroy the Soviet Union, and vice-versa, the principal victims of each country’s nuclear weapons were its own citizens.From the very beginning, nuclear officials dealt with the problem of nuclear waste by devising interim rather than long-term solutions…………………..
………millions of gallons of wastes leaked into the ground. Hanford officials insisted for years that it would take centuries for the waste to reach the groundwater underneath the site. In fact, it was only a matter of decades before their optimistic assumptions were proven wrong.
“…………………..A major reason why the United States today faces a “cleanup” bill of at least $300 billion is that problems such as the Hanford waste tanks were ignored in favor of maintaining or increasing production of nuclear weapons. Production was the first priority of the government. Making sure it was done in a manner that did not unnecessarily hurt people or destroy the environment was a distant second. Had the government thought through more carefully the consequences of unrestrained production of plutonium and highly-enriched uranium, many of the problems—and bills—we face today could have been avoided or substantially mitigated. It now appears that in a number of cases, no effective “cleanup” will be possible and highly-contaminated sites will simply have to be fenced off and monitored for generations………….…A number of the 600,000 people who worked in a nuclear weapons facility were exposed to unnecessarily high levels of radiation. Exposure to toxic chemicals was also high. At several facilities, no consistent records were kept of employee radiation exposures. At at least one, plant officials entered false readings into dosimetry logs. When workers fell ill and applied for worker’s compensation, the DOE spent millions of dollars on lawyer’s fees to avoid paying out even a single claim, out of fear that paying one claim would open the floodgates to lawsuits and increase calls for stricter health and safety measures, which would necessarily drive up costs and impede production of more weapons………………
……..Uranium miners, many of whom were Navajo, developed lung cancer after working in unvented mines without respirators or any sort of protective gear. Government officials were well aware of the dangers to the workers, but chose to ignore them to keep production high and the price of uranium low.
Environmentalists show no confidence in nuclear waste site’s safety
Environmentalists show no confidence in nuclear waste site’s safety THE HANKYOREH, 30 July 09
Lawmaker Cho and environmental researchers disclose prior site assessment reports on Gyeongju waste facility site that reveal base rock instability
Environmental organizations asked for further investigation into the safety of the nuclear waste disposal site currently under construction in the Gyeongju area on Tuesday. The organizations are basing its demands for a complete stop to construction on a review of previously released reports. The completion of the facility’s construction originally set for the end of 2009, has already been delayed by some two and a half years due to problems in the site’s base rock.
Cho Seung-soo, a lawmaker with the New Progressive Party, and members the Korean Federation for Environmental Movement (KFEM) and other environmental organizations, held a press conference at the National Assembly and said, “We cannot confirm the safety of the site because a site assessment (in 2005) confirms the condition of the base rock is unstable and weak.”
No nukes for Taidong
No nukes for Taidong
David on Formosa 16 July 09 a”………………………About the search for a nuclear waste storage site in Taiwan. ………….. it is no accident that nuclear waste is imposed on the poorest and most marginalised communities. The pattern of buying off people with promises of infrastructure and jobs continues.The process of developing a nuclear waste storage site also shows a frightening disregard for democratic process. In December the Presbyterian Church reported that the government was spying on church activities in Taidong. In particular government authorities made enquiries about church activities opposed to nuclear waste. At a public hearing on nuclear waste storage in Taidong in April two environmental activists were illegally detained by police for two hours to prevent them from protesting or speaking at the meeting.
I offer no solutions to the intractable problem of nuclear waste storage. The continuing presence of nuclear waste on Orchid Island is an abomination. The relocation of the waste to another indigenous community on the mainland is also unacceptable. How can governments allow the construction of nuclear power plants when they have no clear plan for the long-term storage of nuclear waste?
Marking the 50th anniversary of the first U.S. nuclear meltdown
Marking the 50th anniversary of the first U.S. nuclear meltdown Los Angeles Times By Louis Sahagun
July 13, 2009Holly Huff, 58, believes her leukemia and thyroid problems are related to the radioactive gases released from the Atomics International laboratory near her home when she was 8 years old.A reactor in Chatsworth began leaking radioactive gas on July 14, 1959. Some area residents blame the facility for their health issues and say the site remains contaminated……………………………..A reactor at the Atomics International field laboratory in the Santa Susana Mountains had experienced a power surge the night before and spewed radioactive gases into the atmosphere………………………..the Environmental Protection Agency’s plans to spend $40 million in stimulus funds on a comprehensive radioactive survey of the nuclear site.“It’s about time,” said Holly Huff, who was 8 years old when the meltdown occurred a mile from her home.
Standing on a bluff overlooking the 2,850-acre facility, which is now owned by Boeing Co. and NASA, Huff said, “They say it will be cleaned up by 2017 — I doubt it. We’ll wait and see.”………………
………………….For about two weeks, the facility, which employed several thousand people, had been venting colorless and odorless radioactive gas into the environment.
“Radioactivity levels during the accident went off-scale,” said Dan Hirsch, a spokesman for the antinuclear group Committee to Bridge the Gap. “We thus do not know to this day how much radioactivity was released.”
Details of the incident were not disclosed until 1979, when a group of UCLA students discovered documents and photographs that referred to a problem at the site involving a “melted blob.”
Ever since, residents have worried about downstream health risks associated with soil contaminated by years of rocket and nuclear testing.
Radioactive emissions from the accident could have resulted in 260 to 1,800 cases of cancer within 62 miles of the site over a “period of many decades,” according to a study released in 2006…………………………………… Half a century after the accident, nuclear cleanup operations and chemical decontamination remain incomplete.
Marking the 50th anniversary of the first U.S. nuclear meltdown – Los Angeles Times
Belarussian kids receive care
Belarussian kids receive careBy John Henderson Rocky Mount Telegram July 06, 2009 Children from Belarus who continue to be exposed to radiation from the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power plant incident have once again traveled to Rocky Mount from the former Soviet Union to receive free medical care.But fewer local “host families” in this down economy have been able pay for the flights and take the children into their homes for six weeks. The host families also take the children to local offices for medical, eye and dental care treatment………………………….
On April 26, 1986, the Chernobyl nuclear power plant reactor exploded, releasing dangerous amounts of radiation into the air. The wind on that day carried it toward Belarus, contaminating the region’s air, soil and water.
“The problem is there is so much unknown radiation material (in Belarus), and it will probably be there for 3,000 or 4,000 years,” Patrone said. “Some of the food is not safe.”………………………………….
“Medically, they are small in size,” Patrone said. “Some have thyroid problems and an occasional immune-deficiency problem. They are still suffering, because basically, radiation is still in the dirt.”
If a child is diagnosed with a major problem here such as thyroid cancer, they are sent back to Belarus for treatment, he said.
“(The trip to Rocky Mount) is a way to get out of the radiation zone and to give kids a second (doctor’s) opinion,” he said.
IAEA calls on Serbia to address nuclear waste problem
AEA calls on Serbia to address nuclear waste problem 3 July 2009 | 15:00 | Source: B92 BELGRADE — The head of the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) has warned that Serbia must dispose of any remaining atomic fuel as soon as possible. Mohammed ElBaradei and Serbian Science Minister Božidar Đelić today signed an additional protocol on cooperation between Belgrade and the IAEA, after visiting the Vinča Nuclear Science Institute yesterday.
ElBaradei warned that Serbia needed to dispose of its remaining supplies of atomic fuel to prevent any possible incidents.
B92 – News – Society – IAEA calls on Serbia to address nuclear waste problem
‘No’ to nuclear power
SOUTHDOWN STAR Marlene Lang 30 June 09 “……………………Twenty-six plants nationwide showed shortfalls in the funds they are required by federal law to set aside for dismantling the reactors someday and cleaning up after themselves.–
Every year the Nuclear Regulatory Commission checks on the state of so-called “decommissioning funds.”
Most years there are only a handful of plants running short of having those estimated costs laid up, usually four or five one official said. Those billions set aside for close-down and clean-up don’t just pile up under a mattress, of course; the money is invested in the stock market. According to an Associated Press report, some $4.4 billion in decommissioning funds was lost in the downturn, even as the actual costs for shutting down plants has risen by $4.6 billion because of (I love this part) rising energy costs – and labor costs.–
Illinois’ Braidwood Station, Byron Station and LaSalle County Station, each with two nuclear reactors, and the Clinton Power Station are all on the NRC’s shortfall list……………………… Plans for fund-challenged nuclear power plants are to let them sit for about six decades, or however long it takes to accumulate the cash to safely dismantle those reactors and remove those nasty, hot and highly radioactive uranium fuel pellets. Sixty years, idle, is the time-frame estimate the NRC gave media earlier this month.–……………………. I didn’t need to be an engineer to wonder what happens when things get, well, rusty? But immediately I doubted my common sense; I asked if maybe we, the non-technical public, are ill-informed? Maybe even stupid? Maybe magical nuclear power plants don’t actually rust; maybe they can rest safely forever on waterfronts near our homes and always safely contain that high-level radioactive fuel.–
I tried to believe, but I lacked what the nuclear industry and U.S. government policy refer to as: Waste Confidence. This is a doctrine – and I chose that word carefully – which says that the nuclear industry can continue to function and grow even though it has the big gaping problem of what to do with the its own leftovers, being confident that a solution will be found. When common sense fails, there is always faith.– …………………………. What to do? The better question may be, what not to do. How about we listen to common sense and NOT build any more of these reactors until we have solved the great mystery of what to do with the waste, and can afford to pay for that solution?
http://www.southtownstar.com/news/lang/1644764,063009-colLANG.article
1 This Month
31st January – Challenging the War Machine – a DECLASSIFIED UK SUMMIT
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 (220)
- 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 