Posts Tagged ‘Radioactive waste’


The Enewetak Atoll, a concrete dome, holding the radioactive waste of 43 nuclear explosions is leaking into the ocean, veterans have warned

  • The Enewetak Atoll was used by the US to test weapons between 1948 and 1958
  • More than 8,000 people would later work to clean up these Pacific islands
  • This shifted 110,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil and debris into a crater
  • But now, with the dome weathered by decades of exposure, it’s feared rising seas and storms could see radiation leaking into the ocean



Read Full Post »

‘A member of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently informed the public that radioactive waste from the decommissioned Hanford nuclear power plant is ‘flowing freely’ into the Columbia river.

The mighty Columbia river is the largest river in the Pacific Northwest region of America, flowing down from Canada, winding through eastern Washington state and along the border between Oregon, ultimately moving through downtown Portland and into the Pacific. The Hanford site, located near Kennewick, WA is up river from a million or so people, not to mention the wildlife.’

Read More: Radioactive Waste Flowing Freely into Columbia River Because There’s No Money to Stop It

Read Full Post »


‘The fifth anniversary of the Fukushima disaster was on Friday, March 11. Since that fateful day in 2011, the Japanese government and the United States have continued to deny the lingering effects of this catastrophic event.

An estimated $21 billion has been spent on cleanup efforts since 2011, including funding for a team of remote activated robots capable of going to high-dose radiation areas of the plant where humans cannot enter and survive.

However, it has now emerged that at least five of these robots have been lost to the dangers that lurk in Fukushima Daiichi’s severely damaged nuclear reactors and waste treatment buildings.’

Read more: ‘City’ Of Waste: Fukushima Cleanup Now Up To 10.7 Million 1-Ton Bags Of Radioactive Waste

Read Full Post »

It’s time the Japanese government tackles the issues head-on. Either it takes the exceedingly unpopular step of imposing a more secure facility on one or more unwilling communities, or it must acknowledge the obvious, which is that the core of Fukushima’s exclusion zone will become a gigantic de facto nuclear waste dump indefinitely.

Playing Pass the Parcel With Fukushima http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/08/opinion/playing-pass-the-parcel-with-fukushima.html?_r=0   PETER WYNN KIRBYMARCH 7, 2016 OXFORD, England — In the five years since the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear meltdowns that devastated Fukushima Prefecture, the Japanese government has undertaken mammoth efforts to decontaminate irradiated communities.

Thousands of workers have removed millions of tons of radioactive debris from backyards and fields, roadsides and school grounds. They have scraped away acres and acres of tainted soil, collected surface vegetal matter, wiped down entire buildings and hosed and scrubbed streets and sidewalks.

The cleanup effort is staggering in scale, and unprecedented. Japan’s leaders hope to restore for human habitation more than 100 cities, towns and villages scattered over hundreds of square miles. The government has allocated more than $15 billion for this work.

The Japanese authorities call these efforts josen (decontamination), but the word is misleading and the activity largely a fallacy. What’s happening is more like transcontamination: Once the radioactive debris is collected and bagged, it is transferred from one part of Fukushima to another, and then another.


The waste is placed in bags, which are periodically collected and brought to provisional storage areas (kari-kari-okiba), before being moved to more secure, though still temporary, storage depots (kari-okiba). Officials at the Ministry of the Environment have said up to 30 million tons of radioactive waste will eventually be moved to yet another, third-level interim storage facility near the crippled Fukushima Daiichi plant. But no significant construction has begun. In fact, the authorities haven’t even managed to convince all the relevant absentee landowners in the area to sell the necessary plots.

So for now the radioactive waste is either lying around or being moved around. Throughout Fukushima, there are large cylindrical plastic sacks — each roughly the size of a hot tub and weighing about a ton when full — stacked in desultory heaps by the side of roads, near driveways or in abandoned lots. In the town of Tomioka in mid-October, I saw three dozen bags piled along the edges of a small cemetery, overtaken by weeds.

The bags deteriorate after three years, meaning that the waste has to be repackaged regularly. Sacks are sometimes moved from one facility to another, based on their levels of radioactivity, which vary and can shift over time. By last fall, there were more than 9 million one-ton bags of radioactive waste. Standard trucks carry fewer than 10 bags at a time — meaning that radioactive material is regularly rotating around Fukushima in a slow-motion version of pass the nuclear parcel. Continue reading

Read Full Post »

Power Dome EX from Emergency Essentials


Corroding, or otherwise damaged, nuclear power station water intake pipes for cooling could cause a major nuclear disaster. Corroded, damaged, radioactive effluent (outtake) pipes pollute groundwater in a slow-moving nuclear-environmental disaster.
GAO-US NRC Tritium Pipe Groundwater Contamination diagram
US NRC Schematic from the GAO Report
According to the US Government Accountability Office:
All U.S. nuclear power plant sites have had some groundwater contamination from radioactive leaks, and some of these leaks came from underground piping systems

MORE HERE: https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2016/02/14/radioactive-groundwater-contamination-at-all-us-nuclear-power-stations-pipe-failures-endanger-nuclear-power-station-cooling-systems-environment/

Read Full Post »

St. Louis landfill fire could reach radioactive waste in months

| 18 Sept 2015 | A fire smoldering underneath a landfill north of St. Louis since 2010 could reach radioactive waste from the Manhattan Project in as little as three months, according to a report released by Missouri’s attorney general. Much of the uranium used to make the first nuclear weapons was processed in downtown St. Louis, and the waste was moved around the region for decades. In 1973 a private company that bought some of the waste from the U.S. government illegally dumped it at the West Lake Landfill in Bridgeton, Missouri, a northern suburb of St. Louis…One of the reports released by Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster concluded that the underground fire could reach the West Lake Landfill’s known radioactive waste in three to six months — the consequences of which remain largely unknown.

[But, what is known? The corporate-owned US media will not cover this privatized act of eco-terrorism.]

Read Full Post »

Nuclear waste dump on Aboriginal land invalid, court told The West Australian, 3 June 14. Sydney (AFP) – The earmarking of a remote Australian outback area as a nuclear waste dump was invalid because officials failed to contact all traditional Aboriginal landowners affected, a court heard Monday.Muckaty Station in the Northern Territory was nominated in early 2007 as a site to store low and intermediate radioactive waste under a deal negotiated with the Aboriginal Ngapa clan.

While Australia does not use nuclear power, it needs a site to store waste, including processed fuel rods from the country’s only nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights, on the outskirts of Sydney,…..Opponents have fought against the dump for years, with a trial starting in the Federal Court in Melbourne Monday alleging Muckaty’s nomination was invalid due to a failure of the government and the land council to obtain the consent of all Aboriginal owners.

“What we’re here to say is ‘no more’ and that this process was so legally flawed that it is invalid,” Ron Merkel, who is representing traditional owners, told the court.

“The opposition is in no small part based on a spiritual affiliation to the land and that radioactive waste will poison the land,” he said in comments cited by Australian Associated Press.


The court was told the consent of all groups with a claim to the land was required for the facility to go ahead, but some Aboriginals whose country was affected have never had a chance to voice their concerns until now……..Speaking to reporters, Kylie Sambo, of the Warlmanpa people, said the idea of a waste facility on the land, which is in the centre of the country, was “poison”.

“We don’t want it to spoil our country because we love our land and we’ve been there for centuries,” she said. “My uncle once told me, ‘You may think you own the land, but in fact the land owns us’.”

The Australian Conservation Foundation said the case raised questions about the country’s management of long-lived radioactive waste.
“Australia has never has an independent assessment of how best to manage radioactive waste; now we urgently need one,” campaigner Dave Sweeney said.

The case is set to run for five weeks. https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/world/a/24084083/nuclear-waste-dump-on-aboriginal-land-invalid-court-told/

Read Full Post »

Reuters / Lucy Nicholson

Environmental regulators and North Dakota state officials have expressed concern that the state has failed to adequately adjust to the state’s sudden influx of crude oil output, a worry highlighted by the recent discovery of abandoned radioactive waste.

Last month, the North Dakota Health Department announced that a large pile of oil filter socks –radioactive nets that are used to strain liquid during the oil production process – had been found at an old gas station in Noonan, a small town in the northwestern region of the state.

The bags were covered in dust – an indication they had been there for some time – and dumped illegally at the mechanics station owned by a fugitive named Ken Ward, who reportedly worked in North Dakota’s fledgling gas and oil industry.

I suspect that he was doing contract work for some oil company and he told them he would – I’m sure for a price – take these and properly dispose of them,” North Dakota Waste Management Director Scott Radig told ThinkProgress. “He did it the cheap way, took the money, and took off.”

That unfortunate discovery was the second event in just a few days in early March, as another pile of oil socks was found on flatbed trailers near a landfill outside another small town in northwestern North Dakota, where the majority of the state’s oil shale formation is located.

Oil socks give off relatively low radiation levels (the Wall Street Journal reported that standing next to a dumpster full would give a person less skin damage than a dental X-ray), although the ugly images that have been broadcast throughout the media, combined with the explosion in oil production, has alarmed the public.

Before the Bakken oil boom we didn’t have any of these materials being generated,” Radig told journalist Chester Dawson on Tuesday. “So it wasn’t really an issue.”

The state passed a law last week requiring the shale-oil industry to use leak-proof containers to hold used oil socks at shale sites. The law goes into effect on June 1. North Dakota already requires that filters be transported with “licensed waste haulers” to proper waste facilities.

However, despite the state’s position as one of the leaders in shale oil production, North Dakota does not have even one facility that can properly get rid of the waste that comes in from the 500-600 sites currently in production.

There’s such a rush to get the oil out that the rules and regulations are not keeping up with the pace of development,” Wayne Schafer, head of the North Dakota chapter of the Sierra Club – perhaps the most influential environmental group in the US – told the Journal. “This state is reactive instead of proactive.”

The new law and relatively small amount of radiation are not enough for members of the community who are not involved in the oil industry. Noonan Mayor Cyndie Fagerbakke told the Associated Press last month residents are “disgusted” with the recent find.

This is blatant disregard for the health and welfare of our community,” she said. “It’s criminal and the people responsible should be punished very, very stringently.”

She also said that North Dakota farmers have come forward to admit they’re particularly nervous about stumbling on radioactive waste that has been stored on their land illegally.

I’m not at all happy about how the state regulates these radioactive filter socks,” Fagerbakke went on. “Why isn’t the state more on top of this and why don’t they have a more stringent plan for getting rid of this stuff?”

Read Full Post »

Nearly 2,000 capsules containing radioactive waste at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation need to be relocated. That’s because the site was built in an area that’s prone to earthquakes. How could this happen?

Hanford 2011

The facility, located in in southeastern Washington State, was the world’s largest producer of plutonium during the Cold War. Today, it is America’s most contaminated nuclear site, and the focus of an ongoing cleanup that is costing taxpayers some $2 billion per year.

The 1,936 capsules contain radioactive cesium and strontium that was previously buried in underground tanks, and then later moved into “wet storage”—a 13-foot-deep pool of water that helps cool the corrosive-proof containers, which account for 32 percent of the radioactivity at Hanford.

And, now, according to this Inspector General report from the US Department of Energy, the capsules in the Waste Encapsulation and Storage Facility (WESF) need to be moved yet again:

The March 2011 tsunami and subsequent events at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Nuclear Power Plant in Okuma and Futaba, Japan highlighted the vulnerabilities to nuclear facilities from possible seismic and natural disasters that are more severe than the facilities’ original design, or “beyond design threats.” One possible threat is a severe earthquake that may result in loss of power and/or loss of water in the WESF pool.

Making matters worse—yes, as usual, there’s a “worse”— the report notes that the storage facility has been in service for nine years beyond its design life. The age is beginning to show: the concrete in the WESF pool cells has begun to deteriorate due to years of radiation exposure.

So, it’s now incumbent upon the Energy Department to find a new temporary storage facility. I say “temporary” because we still don’t have a permanent nuclear waste repository. But, no worries, the government has set a goal to open such a facility…in 2048.

original link

Read Full Post »

Bags of radioactive waste lie under a tent at the garbage incineration site in Nagareyama, Chiba Prefecture. (Kazuhiro Nagashima)

Bags of radioactive waste lie under a tent at the garbage incineration site in Nagareyama, Chiba Prefecture. (Kazuhiro Nagashima)

March 07, 2014


Kikuji Enomoto wanted to live his retirement in peace while helping to beautify his neighborhood, but he is now stuck residing near more than 500 tons of radioactive waste.

The waste, consisting of incinerator ash, is being stored at the Teganuma disposal site, about 800 meters from Enomoto’s home in Abiko, Chiba Prefecture. It is part of the thousands of tons of radioactive waste that remain in temporary storage in the Tokyo area nearly three years after the triple meltdown at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.

Enomoto, 73, has run out of patience waiting for the prefecture to decide on a final disposal site for the waste.

He heads a group of 32 residents who filed a lawsuit in January against the Chiba prefectural government, demanding that the radioactive waste temporarily stored in their neighborhood be removed immediately.

“A major problem would arise if the incinerator ash leaked out due to the effects of a natural disaster and contaminated the surrounding rice fields,” Enomoto said.

The temporarily stored waste contains more than 8,000 becquerels of radioactive cesium per kilogram and has been designated for special processing.

At the end of last year, 12 prefectures were storing a total of 140,843 tons of the waste. The basic rule is to have each prefectural government find a final disposal site for radioactive waste produced within its jurisdiction through garbage incineration or sewage treatment.

The central government plans to build final disposal sites in five prefectures–including Chiba–that have a dearth of storage sites, but no significant progress has been made. The other seven prefectures have still not decided how to handle radioactive waste within their boundaries.

Chiba Prefecture designated 3,612 tons of radioactive waste, mainly from the northwestern part of the prefecture, where many hot spots with high radiation levels were detected following the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident.

The three cities of Kashiwa, Matsudo and Nagareyama incinerated a large part of that waste, producing 2,564 tons of ash that could not be sufficiently stored. The prefectural government allowed 526 tons of the ash to be brought to the Teganuma site at the end of 2012.

Incineration does not destroy radioactive substances, so the ash still falls under the designation for special disposal.

The central government plans to construct a final disposal site in Chiba Prefecture by the end of March 2015, the deadline set under an agreement between the prefectural government and the three municipal governments to end temporary storage at Teganuma.

However, the selection process has not gone smoothly, and the residents filed the lawsuit because they feared the temporary storage site would become the permanent one.

Enomoto, who has won an award from the Abiko government for his efforts to beautify the city, said the central government must become more involved.

“Unless a final disposal site operated by the central government is constructed, there would be no place to keep the incinerator ash,” he said. “I want them to take back this waste as soon as possible.”

Kashiwa Mayor Hiroyasu Akiyama stressed the urgency of the situation.

“If a location for the final disposal site is not chosen by around September, we will have to begin considering a temporary storage site for the waste that will be returned,” Akiyama said.

The Tokyo metropolitan government has designated about 982 tons as radioactive waste. All but one ton is now being temporarily stored at a land reclamation site.

“We were lucky to have a disposal site surrounded by the ocean,” an official in charge said. “There has been no strong opposition from residents. We want to now wait for the central government to take care of the matter.”

Saitama is the only prefecture in the greater Tokyo area that has not designated any radioactive waste. But that does not mean there is no such waste in the prefecture just north of the capital.

In fact, the prefecture is temporarily storing 245 tons of incinerator ash with radiation levels that would qualify it as radioactive waste at its sewage processing facility in Toda.

Saitama Prefecture has not applied for the designation to avoid being obliged to process the waste within the prefecture.

“If we received the designation, we would have to ask a municipality to bear the burden of being chosen for the final disposal site,” a prefectural government official said.

An official with the prefectural government section in charge of sewage management said if radiation levels of the waste decreased to a certain level, it could be turned over to a company handling industrial waste for transport outside of Saitama.

Read Full Post »

SOME of Adelaide’s most prominent residential suburbs are home to radioactive waste, the Environment Protection Authority has revealed.

Other than the CBD, the Adelaide Hills with 39 sites has the most number of small storages which include low and intermediate low-level radioactive waste.

The details are revealed in documents released under the Freedom of Information Act, even though this has previously been denied by the EPA.

An EPA spokeswoman said most of the sources were being stored or used in machines that required radiation, but could not say home many were waste.

READ MORE: Radiactive waste stored near homes

TELL US: How does this make you feel?

“The majority would be unsealed radioactive substances used in premises such as nuclear medicine departments and sealed radioactive sources in plant and equipment used in mining, industrial, medical and scientific applications,’’ she said.

“The majority of sealed radioactive sources and unsealed radioactive substances in premises within SA are currently being used or stored.

“Any waste would be very low-level to intermediate low-level waste.’’

Other Adelaide suburbs which have sites include: Thebarton 27 sites, Bedford Park 26, Mawson Lakes 23, Osborne 21, Urrbrae 19, Norwood 17, Keswick 14, Woodville 13, Black Forest 10, Wingfield 11, North Adelaide 7, Glenside 7, Export Park 5, Gillman 5, Bellevue Heights 3, Cheltenham 3, Glenelg 3, two each at Camden Park, Edwardstown, Elizabeth,

Ashford, Kent Town, Regency Park, and one each at Evanston Park, Blackwood, Burton, Gepps Cross, Golden Grove and Noarlunga.

In total the EPA lists 928 sites, mostly at mine sites in remote locations.

Family First MLC Robert Brokenshire said he sought the information using the Freedom of Information Act because people had a right to know what was being stored in their suburb.

Number of storage per suburbs in Adelaide.

Number of storage per suburbs in Adelaide. Source: The Advertiser

The Rann government campaigned heavily against a nuclear storage facility in outback SA, which left the disposal of low and mid-level radioactive waste in limbo, he said.

“Labor Government decided to play games on the storage of nuclear waste, which worked against the safety and security of our whole state,’’ Mr Brokenshire said.

“Labor should have sat down and worked out a plan for nuclear waste storage. Now we have waste stored throughout the suburbs.’’

READ MORE: Business demands debate on SA nuclear industry

The EPA spokeswoman said there was no high-level radioactive waste stored in SA.

She said it was “very low level to intermediate level category, and does not pose a risk to the community if stored in accordance with the Regulations under the Act’’.

“Owners are required to abide by the requirements of the Radiation Protection and Control Ionising Radiation Regulations 2000 under the Radiation Protection and Control

Act 1982, have a radiation management plan for their practice, and if applicable the (national) code of practice for the security of radioactive sources,’’ the spokeswoman said.

The EPA spokeswoman said since the last full audit of radioactive waste in 2003, efforts had been made to remove waste from SA.

“Since the report was published there has been a significant effort by organisations to dispose of

their waste and remove waste from SA by sending sealed radioactive sources that were considered waste, overseas for re-use or storage in waste facilities,’’ she said.

source link

Read Full Post »

Whistle-blower Donna Busche, who raised safety concerns at the nation’s most polluted nuclear weapons production site, was fired Tuesday from her job at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation.


Busche’s complaints are part of a string of whistle-blower and other claims related to the design and safety of an unfinished waste treatment plant at Hanford.


Busche, 50, said she was called into the office Tuesday morning and told she was being fired for cause.


“I turned in my key and turned in my badge and left the building,” Busche told The Associated Press in a telephone interview from Richland.


Busche worked for URS Corp., which is helping build a $12 billion plant to turn Hanford’s most dangerous wastes into glass. Construction of the plant has been halted over safety concerns. Busche has filed complaints with the federal government, alleging she has suffered retaliation since filing her original safety complaint in 2011.


Hanford was created by the federal government in the 1940s as part of the top-secret project to build the atomic bomb, and cleanup costs today run about $2 billion annually.


Central to the cleanup is dealing with 53 million gallons of highly radioactive waste left from decades of plutonium production for the nation’s nuclear weapons arsenal. The waste is stored in 177 aging underground tanks, many of which have leaked, threatening the groundwater and the neighboring Columbia River.


The U.S. Department of Energy is investigating Busche’s safety concerns, while the U.S. Department of Labor is reviewing her complaints about retaliation and harassment.


URS Corp. said in a statement it encourages employees to raise safety concerns.


“We do not agree with her assertions that she suffered retaliation or was otherwise treated unfairly,” URS said, adding Busche was fired for reasons unrelated to the safety concerns. “Ms. Busche’s allegations will not withstand scrutiny.”


The Energy Department, which owns Hanford, said it was informed of the firing after the fact. “The department was not asked to and did not approve this action,” the agency said in a news release.


A one-of-a-kind plant is being built to convert the waste into glasslike logs for permanent disposal underground, but it has faced numerous technical problems, delays and cost increases.


Busche is the second Hanford whistle-blower to be fired by URS in recent months. Walter Tamosaitis, who also raised safety concerns about the plant, was fired in October after 44 years of employment.


Busche, who worked at the plant for nearly five years, said she had been expecting to be fired for the past month.


“Right now I will take a deep breath, file for unemployment and start another lawsuit for wrongful termination,” Busche said.


She declined to reveal her salary but called herself a “highly compensated executive.” Busche was a manager of environmental and nuclear safety at the waste treatment plant construction site, and her primary job was ensuring compliance with dangerous waste permits and safety documents.


Tom Carpenter of the watchdog group Hanford Challenge called Busche’s firing an act of desperation.


“They couldn’t make her leave,” Carpenter said. “Hanford’s war on whistle-blowers has taken a new victim.”


Busche worked at Energy Department nuclear complexes her entire career, generally in nuclear safety, quality assurance or regulatory compliance.


Busche filed her most recent complaint in November, alleging she has suffered retaliation by URS and Bechtel National Inc., the plant’s main contractor. She filed the new complaint with the Labor Department.


Read Full Post »

Just under 100 years to clean up UK nuclear plant – if they’re lucky

he final decommissioning at Trawsfynydd and elsewhere depends on finding a safe long term solution for where to deposit the ILW as well as the High Level Waste (HLW) currently stored at Sellafield. This includes the spent nuclear fuel which was removed when the plant closed.

Trawsfynydd timeline

1959: Construction started

1965 to 1991: Electricity generation
1993 to 1995: Decommissioning starts – fuel removed and sent to Sellafield
1995 to 2016: Recovery of waste and preparations to put the plant into a ‘passively safe’ state
2020-26: Reduction in height of reactor buildings
2040s: Scheduled removal of Intermediate Level Waste to deep geological storage
2074: Final site clearance starts
2083: Site returned to pre-existing state


How do you close a nuclear power station? BBC  By Steven Green 28 Oct 13 As the UK embarks on building what could be a new generation of nuclear power plants, work continues to decommission the first generation of nuclear power stations at sites including Trawsfynydd in Snowdonia which will take an estimated 90 years to complete.

Robotic recovery   Eryl Pritchard is at the controls of a robotic arm engaged in the painstaking process of retrieving radioactive resin from a dark, water-filled vault. “It’s not as simple as it looks,” he says. Nothing about it looks simple. Radioactivity inside the vault means everything has to be done remotely using tools mounted on the robotic arm.

A bank of monitors show the arm from various angles. A control panel shows a mind-boggling array of levers, switches and buttons……..

Some of the decommissioning work is considered too dangerous or uneconomic to carry out in the current phase of decommissioning.

The two steel pressure vessels which contained the nuclear reactors are staying in the reactor buildings until the radioactivity of the steel has decayed to a safer level.

The twin reactor buildings are having their height lowered to reduce the visual impact of the plant on the surrounding Snowdonia countryside.

From 2026 that is how the site will be left with the ILW still stored on site alongside the reactor buildings.

Where does the radioactive waste go?

The final decommissioning at Trawsfynydd and elsewhere depends on finding a safe long term solution for where to deposit the ILW as well as the High Level Waste (HLW) currently stored at Sellafield. This includes the spent nuclear fuel which was removed when the plant closed.

The most likely solution is storage deep underground but a site has yet to be identified. It is hoped that will be established by the 2040s allowing the ILW at Trawsfynydd to be removed. Final site clearance at Trawsfynydd is not projected to start until 2074 with the land returned to its original state by 2083. It is at that stage that the reactor buildings and the steel pressure vessels will be demolished………

Another issue will be what to do with the graphite reactor cores which are still inside the steel pressure vessels at Trawsfynydd.

“One of the problems the UK has with its commercial nuclear power reactors, with the exception of Sizewell B, is that they all have a large graphite core which is used as a moderator, that’s inside the pressure vessel and that’s used to slow the neutrons down.

“There is no real disposal route for the graphite in the UK, the volumes are huge. If you look at the carbon, and the sulphur as well, certain isotopes, the half-lifes are hundreds of thousands of years,” says Belshaw. While the radioactivity will be very persistent, the graphite is only classed as Low Level Waste (LLW), so will probably not be stored deep underground.

Could the decommissioning be done faster?

Twenty years after it closed, many hundreds more people are employed at Trawsfynydd than when it was generating power. And it will be many decades before the site can be fully restored.

Could it be done more quickly? Not economically says its owners, Magnox. Earlier decommissioning would involve more expensive remote operations and still carry the risk of exposing workers to radiation.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/0/24642256

Read Full Post »

Naval bases could become nuclear dumps

–Fears grow in dockyard cities over removal of radioactive material from decommissioned subs

27 Oct 2013 Fears that two major naval bases sited near large British cities could become nuclear waste storage facilities “by default” have grown after it was revealed the Ministry of Defence proposes to remove low-level radioactive waste from the UK’s nuclear submarine fleet. According to minutes of a submarine dismantling meeting, the “early removal of low-level waste” has been proposed at two major dockyards: Rosyth, in the Forth estuary, Fife, and Devonport, in Plymouth. Experts warned that removing radioactive waste would need to be explained “carefully” to ensure dismantling sites on bases near major population centres did not become waste storage areas “by default”.

Read Full Post »

Australia’s old Has-Been Hawke – in the grip of the nuclear lobby

Greens condemn plan to turn Australia into the world’s nuclear waste dump Australian Greens spokesperson on nuclear policy, Senator Scott Ludlam. 24 August 2013.  The Greens have strongly rejected the proposal by former Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke to turn Australia into a dump for the world’s nuclear waste.

Greens spokesperson Senator Scott Ludlam said the plan was “the worst imaginable way to raise revenue”.

“What Mr. Hawke is proposing is criminal activity.  The Parliament passed Greens amendments last year to prohibit the importation of nuclear waste.


“Mr Hawke seems to think the way to fill the Budget hole is to fill a hole in Australia with the world’s nuclear waste.  The Labor Party and the Coalition must rule out this dangerous proposal immediately.

“Having seen both the Howard and Rudd-Gillard Governments make an absolute mess of trying to force a dump for Australian nuclear waste on Tenant Creek in the Northern Territory, heaven help us if they were trying to deal with nuclear waste from around the world as well.

“The question is – is Mr Hawke expressing this view as a hobby or as an earner on the side?  If he has any commercial interests in a waste management company he should make that clear now

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: