Nukewatch

Working for a nuclear-free future since 1979

  • Issues
    • Direct Action
    • Environmental Justice
    • Nuclear Power
      • Chernobyl
      • Fukushima
    • Nuclear Weapons
    • On The Bright Side
    • Radiation Exposure
    • Radioactive Waste
    • Renewable Energy
    • Uranium Mining
    • US Bombs Out of Germany
  • Quarterly Newsletter
    • Quarterly Newsletter
    • Newsletter Archives
  • Resources
    • Nuclear Heartland Book
    • Fact Sheets
    • Reports, Studies & Publications
      • The New Nuclear Weapons: $1.74 Trillion for H-bomb Profiteers and Fake Cleanups
      • Nuclear Power: Dead In the Water It Poisoned
      • Thorium Fuel’s Advantages as Mythical as Thor
      • Greenpeace on Fukushima 2016
      • Drinking Water at Risk: Toxic Military Wastes Haunt Lake Superior
    • Nukewatch in the News
    • Links
    • Videos
  • About
    • About Nukewatch
    • Contact Us
  • Get Involved
    • Action Alerts!
    • Calendar
  • Donate

December 18, 2025 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Fukushima Radioactive Waste Problems Metastasize

By John LaForge

The Tokyo Electric Power Company, Tepco, has said that two specially designed and newly installed robots will need three years to remove 3,000 sandbags from the basements of the three destroyed nuclear reactor buildings at Fukushima-Daiichi, in Japan.

The sandbags were used in the initial, panic-driven days of the site’s triple reactor meltdowns of March 2011, when highly radioactive water gushed into the reactor basements and had to be diverted. Interesting Engineering reported that the sandbags are in areas “with lethal radiation levels” too hazardous for manual work.

The robots will be operated remotely due to the sandbags’ fierce radioactivity, because of the large bulk of the bags which weigh a total of 41 metric tonnes, and because of the chaotic wreckage inside the destroyed reactors’ basements.
The project is expected to take at least until March 2028, according to Tepco.

News reports did not specify the kind of radioactivity that contaminates the deadly sandbags, but the melted reactor No. 3 was using fuel made partially of plutonium, the most toxic material known to science, which is radioactively hazardous for 240,000 years. Deadly isotopes in addition to plutonium inside the high radiation zones too hot for humans include strontium-90, cesium-137 and -134, iodine-131, cobalt-60, carbon-14, tritium, technetium, neptunium, americium, and others.

Tepco says the deadly sandbags will be “sealed in dedicated containers” and moved to “temporary storage.” The company’s plan for long-term containment of this radioactive waste was not outlined and Tepco was not compelled by the press or the government to explain its long-term strategy.

In Tokyo, the Citizens Nuclear Information Center (CNIC) reports that the sandbags have deteriorated, and cannot be recovered with the bags intact, forcing engineers to consider pumping them out together with the basement’s stagnant water, and then enclosing it all in containers.

Waste storage systems at risk from quakes

Until at least 2027, the sandbags, in addition to tons of highly radioactive sludge produced by filtering contaminated cooling water, have to be kept in an area still at risk of flooding from potential earthquakes and tsunamis, the CNIC reported.

A March 2025 report by Japan’s Cabinet Office’s Disaster Management Working Group said that a long-predicted “mega-quake” ⸺ if it occurs, as anticipated, along the Nankai Trough off Japan’s southwest Pacific coast ⸺ would likely trigger huge tsunamis, destroy thousands of buildings, spawn mass fires, cost Japan $1.81 trillion, and potentially kill 300,000 people. Under the government report’s worst-case scenario, a magnitude-9 earthquake could see 1.23 million evacuees fleeing the area, or about 10% of its population.

The Nankai trough is where the Philippine Sea Plate is subducting under the Eurasian Plate and accumulating tectonic pressure that can snap. The magnitude 9 undersea tectonic eruption of March 11, 2011 — Japan’s worst ever recorded earthquake whose power smashed reactor foundations at Fukushima Daiichi and flooded the site with tsunami waves — moved the island of Honshu, Japan’s largest, eastward an astounding eight feet.

Japan is one of the earth’s most earthquake-prone areas, and because of Fukushima’s daily accumulation of contaminated cooling water, some 1.3 million tonnes of this highly radioactive liquid waste is held in 1,000 giant 1,000-tonne tanks near the coast. So, the sludge containers, the sandbags, and the wastewater tanks are all vulnerable to daily tremors and the dreaded mega-quake, which can potentially send much of this radioactive waste into the Pacific Ocean.

“Dirty, dangerous, and bank-busting” is so negative. Let’s call nuclear power “Clean, safe, too cheap to meter.”

John LaForge is a Co-director of Nukewatch, a peace and environmental justice group in Wisconsin, and edits its newsletter.

Filed Under: Environment, Fukushima, Nuclear Power, Radioactive Waste, Weekly Column

November 5, 2025 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Long-Term Operation of South Africa’s Koeberg Reactors: A Costly Gamble Enters Phase Two

By Lydia Petersen

CAPE TOWN, South Africa ⸺ In July 2024, Eskom Corp. brought Unit 2 of the Koeberg nuclear reactor station ⸺ a cornerstone of South Africa’s nuclear so-called Long-Term Operation (LTO) strategy ⸺ back online after significant delays. Framed as a “fix for energy insecurity and climate change,” the project is mired in cost overruns, missed deadlines, and legal wrangling. In July 2025, Eskom, owner and operator of the Koeberg reactors, was court-ordered to pay 1-billion South African rands (approximately $56.4 million) over disputes tied to a delayed steam generator replacement. The court’s decision exposes the risks and contradictions of extending aging nuclear infrastructure, not only for South Africa, but for the world, and is a global caution against nuclear “solutions” to the climate crisis.

A crumbling timeline

The repeated delays in the restart of Unit 2 disrupted Eskom’s energy planning and deepened the country’s electricity crisis during which South Africa has been experiencing rolling black-outs. While Koeberg Unit 1 received a 20-year operating license extension, the decision on Unit 2’s extension was deferred. The National Nuclear Regulator (NNR) has since opened a public comment period on the proposed extension, even as the unit resumes operations. With Unit 1 now offline for a planned outage, Koeberg will not run at full capacity again until late 2025. This fragmented process raises serious questions about how nuclear LTOs are being justified in the context of South Africa’s ongoing energy instability.

The $56-million fallout

Recently, the Western Cape High Court ordered Eskom to pay $56 million to France’s nuclear giant Framatome, which oversaw Koeberg’s steam generator replacement. Eskom had resisted resolving the matter through adjudication, opting instead for litigation, and insisted the payment was a “contractual obligation” rather than a penalty. Regardless of semantics, public funds are once again being used to resolve disputes tied to questionable project governance. The full financial cost of Koeberg’s LTO remains secretive, a recurring theme in nuclear contracting worldwide.

Unfinished safety business

Despite Unit 1’s license extension, critical safety concerns remain unresolved. The NNR imposed 29 safety conditions for continued operation, including issues related to containment integrity, corrosion, and seismic preparedness. Eskom claims it is addressing these, but civil society groups have flagged inconsistencies and a lack of transparency in compliance reporting. Adding to the concern is a broader governance issue: the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has warned that South Africa’s Department of Mineral Resources and Energy, an active promoter of nuclear power, should not serve as the oversight body for the NNR. This conflict of interest undermines regulatory independence and erodes public trust.

An unlined trench at South Africa’s Vaalputs National Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility. Photo credit: National Radioactive Waste
Disposal Institute

Waste transport ⸺ a hidden risk

One of the least discussed but most consequential aspects of Koeberg’s LTO is the increase in radioactive waste shipments to the Vaalputs National Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility in the Northern Cape. Waste is transported 375 miles by road inmetal or concrete containers, following IAEA transport regulations. However, the reality on the ground tells a different story.

The primary route to Vaalputs is the R355, a remote, poorly maintained road that has long been flagged by community members and civil society as a safety hazard. Years of appeals to government departments and portfolio committees have yielded no meaningful upgrades. With Koeberg’s LTO expected to generate waste for another two decades, and a proposed Centralized Interim Storage Facility (CISF) at Vaalputs, the volume and frequency of waste transports will increase significantly.

This raises serious questions about South Africa’s ability to meet international benchmarks, not just in packaging and radiation shielding, but in infrastructure resilience, emergency preparedness, and community protection. The IAEA’s standards emphasize not only container integrity but also route safety, public consultation, and risk mitigation. South Africa’s current transport framework falls short on all three.

A global cautionary tale

Koeberg’s LTO is not an isolated case. Across the U.S., Europe, and Asia, utilities are attempting to extend the lives of aging reactors under similar conditions: deferred maintenance, ballooning costs, and weakened oversight. These efforts are often framed as climate solutions, yet the lived realities — from legal disputes to unresolved safety risks — tell a different story. South Africa’s experience with Koeberg adds to mounting global evidence that nuclear power, particularly operating extensions for aging plants, cannot form the backbone of a just and democratic energy transition.

As South Africa pushes ahead with its nuclear agenda, civil society continues to demand transparency, accountability, and a genuine shift toward community-owned renewable energy, not false solutions cloaked in the language of climate urgency. The road to Vaalputs is more than a transport route; it’s a symbol of systemic neglect, regulatory failure, and the urgent need for a new energy paradigm.

— Lydia Petersen is an environmentalist and anti-nuclear activist from Capetown, South Africa. She is the spokesperson for Koeberg Alert Alliance.

Filed Under: Environment, Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Power, Quarterly Newsletter, Radioactive Waste, Uncategorized

November 5, 2025 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Environmental Review Begins for Massive Project to Produce New Nuclear Weapon Cores

By John Burroughs

In 2021, this billboard was installed on Interstate 25, facing traffic traveling toward Albuquerque, New Mexico, and seen by 451,000 drivers per month. What do nuclear weapons cores or “pits” cost these days? At least $50 million each. Photo: Los Alamos Study Group, lasg.org

The United States is planning to establish an infrastructure capable of producing at least 80 plutonium pits for the W87-1 nuclear warhead per year. The project is well described and criticized in a comprehensive report released in May by the Union of Concerned Scientists. In the current approach, facilities would be located at Los Alamos National Laboratory, in New Mexico, and the Savannah River Site, in South Carolina. In a settlement of a lawsuit brought by activist groups, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) agreed to conduct programmatic environmental review of this major project. This summer the NNSA accepted public comments on the scope of the review.

Many Non-Governmental Organizations submitted comments, including the groups that brought the lawsuit resulting in the review: Savannah River Site Watch of Columbia, South Carolina; Nuclear Watch New Mexico of Santa Fe, New Mexico; Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment, based in Livermore, Calif.; and the Gullah/Geechee Sea Island Coalition of coastal Georgia. Other submissions included one from Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy and Western States Legal Foundation. Their comment focused on the nuclear disarmament obligation under Article VI of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and argued that the NNSA must consider a true no-action alternative of no pit production.

According to the comment: “If the United States and other nuclear-armed states, in particular China and Russia, in accordance with Article VI, take a negotiated path to the global elimination of nuclear weapons in the foreseeable future, there will be no need, perceived or real, for plutonium pit production. While the current international landscape is not conducive to that enterprise, it should not be assumed that pit production will take place over the next several decades. The negotiation of the abolition of nuclear arms is a legal obligation of extraordinary practical and moral importance. The PEIS [Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement] should not assume non-compliance with the obligation.”

The comment also observed: “Additionally, a sometimes-overlooked element of Article VI is cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date. Production of pits for new-design warheads on a new delivery system, the Sentinel ICBM, and on submarine-based ballistic missiles, has aspects of nuclear arms racing, both in reality and, importantly, as it is perceived by rival nuclear-armed states. If the W87-1 serves to enable the placement of multiple warheads [on] the Sentinel ICBM, it would contribute to quantitative arms racing; it also would be destabilizing. Moreover, according to the Department of Defense, the Sentinel ICBM will have enhanced capabilities and thus its development and deployment amounts to qualitative arms racing. It also appears that the W93 warhead for submarine-based missiles will add some military capability….”

It concluded: “The PEIS should not rule out the possibility that nuclear arms racing will cease and nuclear disarmament will be implemented in accordance with Nonproliferation Treaty Article VI….”

⸺ John Burroughs is the Senior Analyst of the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, and Board Member, Western States Legal Foundation. This article appeared in “Currents,” the newsletter of Abolishing Nuclear Weapons for Peace and Justice.

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Power, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter, Uncategorized, War

November 5, 2025 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Community Halts Denver Airport’s Small Modular Reactor Proposal in 48 hours

The mayor and airport chief of Denver, Colorado, chose the 80th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima to host a news conference proposing to spend $1.5 million on a small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) at the Denver International Airport.

Plans were then paused amid the uproar from local city council members, area residents, reporters, and environmental advocates. The community was not consulted before the decision to launch the feasibility study. Constituents questioned the huge expenditure on a technology that: is not commercially operating anywhere; has a track record of enormous cost overruns; has no assessment of the draw on local water or other resources; and is guaranteed to generate radioactive waste that must be stored on site for eons with no long-term solution.

The nearby Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge and Superfund site represents one toxic legacy already carried by this community.

Local officials and the airport CEO expressed hopes an SMR would move tech giants to build data centers near the airport and create a “Silicon Valley of nuclear technology,” an goal that is blind to the environmental threats to local community.

⸺ The Colorado Sun online, Aug. 20; Denverite online, Aug. 11, 2025

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Power, Quarterly Newsletter, Uncategorized

November 5, 2025 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Summer Heatwaves Force French and Swiss Nuclear Reactors to Shut Down ⸺ Again

Summer river water temperatures in France and Switzerland were nearing or exceeding 80 degrees Fahrenheit. Between the high heat and a marine jellyfish bloom, at least seven reactors were shut down and several others had to reduce output. Most nuclear reactors pump cooling water from nearby rivers or the sea, returning heated water to the environment. This can harm biodiversity as the hotter water has less oxygen, can be subject to algal blooms, and can cause large kills of fish and other organisms.

Extreme temperatures caused by global warming can mean that reactors are sometimes unable to be cooled as the water bodies become too hot, or that reactors must shut down in order to prevent raising the water temperature to unsafe levels.

Both France and Switzerland have safeguards intended to curtail reactor operations when river temperatures reach a certain level. However, during a major 2022 heatwave, both countries allowed reactors to continue operating with water hotter than the allowed maximum, in order to avoid electricity shortages.

Simultaneously, numerous swarms of jellyfish, expanding due to warmer waters, clogged water intake systems and caused four reactors in France to shut down in August.

Reactors have been forced to reduce output or shut down on several occasions in recent years. Switzerland, which produces about one third of its energy from four nuclear reactors, plans to phase them out by 2033. France’s 56 reactors account for about 65% of the country’s electricity.

A 2024 report by the Cour des Comptes, a French administrative court tasked with auditing government spending, projected the “country may see the amount of electricity lost because of climate-related shutdowns triple or quadruple by 2050.”
⸺ Euronews.com, July 2, 2025; New York Times July 3, 2025

Filed Under: Environment, Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Power, Quarterly Newsletter, Uncategorized

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • …
  • 94
  • Next Page »

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Subscribe

Donate

Categories

  • B61 Bombs in Europe
  • Chernobyl
  • Counterfeit Reactor Parts
  • Depleted Uranium
  • Direct Action
  • Environment
  • Environmental Justice
  • Fukushima
  • Lake Superior Barrels
  • Military Spending
  • Newsletter Archives
  • North Korea
  • Nuclear Power
  • Nuclear Weapons
  • Office News
  • On The Bright Side
  • Photo Gallery
  • Protect the Water Close Xcel's Monticello Reactor
  • Quarterly Newsletter
  • Radiation Exposure
  • Radioactive Waste
  • Renewable Energy
  • Social Issues
  • Sulfide Mining
  • Through the Prism of Nonviolence
  • Uncategorized
  • Uranium Mining
  • US Bombs Out of Germany
  • War
  • Weekly Column

Contact Us

(715) 472-4185
nukewatch1@lakeland.ws

Address:
740A Round Lake Road
Luck, Wisconsin 54853
USA

Donate To Nukewatch

News & Information on Nuclear Weapons,
Power, Waste & Nonviolent Resistance

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

© 2026 · Nukewatch