nuclear waste services research support office

• Nuclear Waste Services Research Support Office
• Researcher profiles
• Conflict of Interest Information
• Disciplines
• External Funding
• Projects Recruiting Researchers
• Current Research Highlights
• Affiliates scheme
• Community of Practice
• Previous events

We will hold events, such as our annual meeting and topic meetings, to showcase of our latest expertise and research to members of the research community involved in radioactive geological disposal.  Sign up to our newsletter to be informed of any future events first.

  Research in progress webinar series

The Nuclear Waste Services Research Support Office (RSO) research in progress seminar series aims to facilitate knowledge exchange between NWS, academics and research organisations on research topics important to geological disposal. Please do feel free to bring your lunch to these informal sessions.

Information about our next event will be available on our Webinars page. You can also see recordings of the previous webinars from this series on the Webinars  page. 

To be kept informed of future webinars sign up to our newslette r and follow us on Twitter .

We welcome opportunities to connect with the research community, industry and the general public.

[email protected]

Nuclear Waste Services Research Support Office The University of Manchester Manchester M13 9PL UK

Connect with us

• Featured events
• Today's events
• Welcome week events
• The Whitworth events
• Manchester Museum events
• Jodrell Bank Discovery Centre events
• Martin Harris Centre events
• The John Rylands Library events
• Exhibitions
• Conferences
• Lectures and seminars
• Performances
• Events for prospective students
• Family events
• Bicentenary events

News and features

Top nuclear waste scientist joins university of bristol.

Professor Neil Hyatt speaking at the Nuclear Waste Services (NWS) Research Support Office annual conference NWS

Press release issued: 26 September 2023

Professor Neil Hyatt, an internationally-renowned leader in the field of radioactive waste management, is set to begin a three-year role at the University of Bristol.

Prof Hyatt, currently Chief Scientific Advisor at Nuclear Waste Services (NWS) which unites the UK’s leading nuclear waste management expertise, has been appointed as Aegis Professor of Deep Time Science and Engineering in the School of Earth Sciences.

He said: “I am delighted and honoured to have the opportunity to support the School of Earth Sciences, and wider faculty, in realising their objectives relating to energy and the environment through provision of strategic advice. 

“I look forward to mentoring students and staff, facilitating collaboration across organisations, and promoting the value of research and research impact in an industrial and government context.”

The Aegis Professor Scheme, managed by the university's Science Partnership Office on behalf of the Faculty of Science and Engineering, appoints honorary professors from business and industry to work with staff and students in areas of strategic importance.

Prof Hyatt’s role at NWS, which focuses on the safe and secure management and disposal of the UK's radioactive waste, ensures scientific and technical evidence is applied to decision making and risk assessment. He has acted as an advisor on nuclear waste and decommissioning both to the UK Government and organisations globally.

Professor Alison Rust, Head of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol, said: “Nuclear waste is a long-term challenge for the UK that requires collaboration across disciplines, including the Earth Sciences. I am delighted to welcome Neil to help us strengthen what is a new research area for the school, particularly as it aligns with our priority for a sustainable future in both energy and the environment. Neil’s successes across academia, industry, and policy also brings an invaluable perspective to our students and researchers as they forge their own career paths.” 

Professor David Manley, Dean of Science and Engineering at the University of Bristol, said:“Neil’s work will contribute to multiple strands of the faculty’s activity, enhancing our cross-disciplinary working and our collaborations between industry and academia in an area of key strategic importance. With the Schools of Physics, Earth Science and Geographical Sciences all represented in Nuclear Science, the role will be a catalyst to develop further networks, especially in nuclear waste management, a critical element of our infrastructure.”

Further information

The Aegis Professor Scheme was established by the Science Partnership Office at the University of Bristol. ‘Aegis’ is an ancient Greek term meaning protection, support or guidance. Our visiting Aegis Professors provide guidance to students and researchers by bringing their up-to-date experience of work into academia. Through lectures, talks and mentorship, they help University colleagues ensure that teaching is relevant to current business needs, and enable them to apply their research expertise to real-world problems. They may also offer support on start-ups, entrepreneurship, product development and regulatory considerations. 

Nuclear Waste Services (NWS) was created with the vision and purpose to make nuclear waste permanently safe, sooner. NWS brings together the UK’s leading nuclear waste management capabilities and is part of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority group, which has a collective long-term mission to clean up nuclear sites safely, securely, and cost-effectively.  

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We’d like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

• Environment
• Waste and recycling
• Radioactive and nuclear substances and waste

Nuclear Waste Services brings together the UK’s leading nuclear waste management capabilities

Introducing Nuclear Waste Services

Nuclear Waste Services brings together the UK’s leading nuclear waste management capabilities.

We have integrated the expertise of Low Level Waste Repository (LLWR), Radioactive Waste Management (RWM), and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) group’s Integrated Waste Management Programme (IWMP). This creates an organisation focused on the management of the UK’s nuclear waste, safely and securely for generations to come.

We are part of the NDA group , which is undertaking the biggest clean-up project in Europe over many decades. Nuclear Waste Services is integral to this environmental clean-up mission, as we work to provide permanent answers to our country’s nuclear waste. The UK has been producing and managing radioactive waste on an industrial scale since the 1940s. However, today’s approach and capabilities for waste management need to adapt to keep pace with NDA’s decommissioning ambitions. This includes its commitment to recycle 50% of waste from decommissioning and reduce secondary wastes by around 70% by 2030.

Coming together as a single business provides an integrated way of tackling waste of the past, while offering more sustainable and efficient services to waste producers, now and in the future.

We want Nuclear Waste Services to be a great place to work where everybody is action orientated, ambitious, collaborative and acts with integrity. It will combine the talent of our people and give them an environment in which to thrive. Not only will this be good for our people, but also allow Nuclear Waste Services to grow its capability even further. We will be driven by doing the right thing for our people, customers, partners, and the communities where we operate to ensure all our operations are safe and secure.

Our key commitments

• We will be a safe and responsible business
• We will be customer and community focused
• We will develop capabilities

We are specialists in the treatment and disposal of nuclear waste. Our goal is to ensure that waste is managed in a way that protects people and the environment, now and in the future.

A customer and community focused business with safety at its core

A great place to work, where people are respected, included and can perform at their best

A centre of excellence to drive and deliver value for the taxpayer

Securing a safer future for us all.

Our mission

Protecting people and the environment by managing the UK’s nuclear waste innovatively and sustainably.

Nuclear Waste Services will build on work delivered over many decades, while adding more essential services for customers in the nuclear energy, defence, industrial, medical, and research sectors.

We’ll draw on years of innovation by LLWR, where a full range of specialist skills and solutions – waste characterisation, treatment, recycling, volume reduction, packaging, and disposal – have been developed.

This has optimised the lifetime of the repository. Waste is only disposed directly at the repository site if it cannot be diverted for alternative treatment and disposal.

Developing a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) for the permanent disposal of higher activity radioactive wastes is a strategic imperative, and represents one of the UK’s largest environmental and infrastructure programmes. The UK search for a suitable site is, uniquely, based on consent from a willing community and includes a right to withdraw from the process right up until a test of public support.

One of our commitments is to work with waste producers to overcome a range of challenges and to capitalise on new opportunities. We will do this by thinking differently about waste and enabling a flexible approach to long-term waste management.

The IWMP has been charged with this work, creating, and developing new approaches and defining the appropriate implementation routes. This will be crucial for delivering more efficiency, greater speed and lower costs.

Nuclear Waste Services will continue to put the voice of our people, customers, communities, and supply chain at the heart of everything we do.

Major Capital Programmes (Project developer)

Managing the delivery of large-scale capital projects, with an initial focus on a GDF. This involves working with communities to find a suitable site and a willing community to host the GDF.

Waste Operations (Nuclear site license operator)

Responsible for managing and operating sites, like the repository, that fall within the remit of Nuclear Waste Services. The focus is on the safe, compliant, and effective management of waste management infrastructure.

Waste Services (Service provider)

Working with customers to provide waste management services and solutions to address their challenges. As well as providing advice and expertise, we manage contracts and relationships across the waste cycle.

Integrated Waste Management Programme

Developing new waste management capability and opportunities to work group-wide as part of a broader integration programme to underpin the NDA’s and nation’s strategy of a more joined-up approach to waste management.

Enabling Functions

Supporting functions include commercial, communications and stakeholder relations, environmental, health, safety, security and quality (EHSSQ), finance, human resources and legal. These ensure high standards are maintained, and the business has the right resources and processes to deliver effectively and efficiently.

See our corporate brochure Introducing Nuclear Waste Services for more information.

Nuclear Waste Services (NWS) is a joint trading name of both LLW Repository Limited (LLWR) and Radioactive Waste Management Limited (RWM).

NWS is a division of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) which includes RWM and LLWR. NWS is not a legal entity but provides strategic oversight over the operation and development of these businesses through a management board governance structure.

Corporate information

Access our information.

• Accessible documents policy
• Equality and diversity
• Office access and opening times
• Modern slavery statement
• Media enquiries
• Research at Nuclear Waste Services
• Our governance

Jobs and contracts

• Procurement at Nuclear Waste Services
• Working for Nuclear Waste Services

Read about the types of information we routinely publish in our Publication scheme . Our Personal information charter explains how we treat your personal information.

Is this page useful?

• Yes this page is useful
• No this page is not useful

Help us improve GOV.UK

Don’t include personal or financial information like your National Insurance number or credit card details.

To help us improve GOV.UK, we’d like to know more about your visit today. We’ll send you a link to a feedback form. It will take only 2 minutes to fill in. Don’t worry we won’t send you spam or share your email address with anyone.

Dalton Nuclear Institute

Our team of experts span a range of ages and disciplines, and work collaboratively within the University, with academics from other universities and with industry and government.

Meet our core academic and Professional Services team below. You can find our Dalton Cumbrian Facility team here . 

You can also find details of the members of our research community by visiting the University's Research Explorer.

Adrian Bull MBE

Associate Director and BNFL Chair in Nuclear Energy and Society – Adrian joined the University in 2021, following 40 years in the UK nuclear industry with BNFL, Westinghouse and the National Nuclear Laboratory. His Dalton activities focus on Government policy around nuclear and energy, and on stakeholder and community engagement on nuclear issues.

William Bodel

Dalton Fellow in Nuclear Energy Policy – Will’s doctoral research into nuclear engineering materials focused on nuclear graphite and its behaviour under reactor conditions. He subsequently worked on material fracture and life-extension of the UK’s AGR fleet. His current research area is energy policy, focusing on the role nuclear energy can play in the future of the UK.

Gregg Butler

Head of Strategic Assessment – Gregg has 60 years’ experience in most aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle: R&D, planning, commercial, plant, site and company operations and management, director and advisory committee roles. He has published extensively on nuclear topics, and is currently concentrating on Nuclear Energy’s role in Net Zero.

Jacqui Grant

Operations Manager – Jacqui is Operations Manager for the Dalton Nuclear Institute with a primary role to support delivery of activities across the Manchester campus.

Patrick Hackett

Nuclear Waste Services Research Support Office (RSO) Programme Manager – Patrick is responsible for the delivery of the RSO’s activities, including the administration of its annual PhD bursary call, the development of research communities around 10 disciplines and the RSO annual conference.

Scott Heath

Associate Director, Professor of Nuclear Chemistry - Scott’s current research involves development of analytical techniques for trace radioactive nuclides, and control of radioactive contaminants in engineered environments. He is Director of the GREEN Centre for Doctoral Training in Nuclear Fission, Associate Dean for Post Graduate Researcher Development and member of the Government Nuclear Skills Task Force.

Zara Hodgson

Director and Professor of Nuclear Engineering – Zara has a broad background in nuclear R&D, through the Nuclear Innovation & Research Office and the National Nuclear Laboratory, ranging from spent fuel management to nuclear power systems for space exploration. She joined the Institute in 2024 from the Department for Energy Security & Net Zero where she led on nuclear fuel policy.

Robert Jones

Head of Operations - Robert is Head of Operations for the Dalton Nuclear Institute. He is based at the Dalton Cumbrian Facility (DCF), the University’s centre for radiation science. Robert completed his PhD at DCF in 2016 and has worked in various roles within the nuclear industry.

Engagement and Communications Manager – Rachel is responsible for the Dalton Nuclear Institute’s engagement and communications activity, and supporting the Dalton Community (based across The University of Manchester) and The Beam nuclear and social research network. She has been a part of the Institute since 2015.

Francis Livens

Professor of Radiochemistry – With more than 35 years’ research experience across the fuel cycle, Francis has acted as advisor to the nuclear sector both in the UK and overseas. Francis is Chair of the Nuclear Innovation & Research Advisory Board and a Non Executive Director of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry (awarded the 2021 Becquerel Medal) and Member of the Institute of Strategic Studies.

Juan Matthews

Visiting Professor in Nuclear Energy Technology - Starting as a theoretical physicist Juan carried out and managed research on nuclear safety and advanced reactor systems at Harwell. He later set up and managed activities across Asia for AEA Technology, before working on international business and innovation in the nuclear and energy sectors, mainly for Government.

Katherine Morris

Associate Director and BNFL Chair of Environmental Radioactivity - Kath brings expertise in the speciation and fate of radionuclides in engineered and natural environments with over 20 years’ experience. She is Director of the Nuclear Waste Services Research Support Office, based at The University of Manchester.

Lisa O’Neil

PA to Dalton Nuclear Institute Directors and Project Support to James Schofield Nuclear Lab Control Manager.

Samantha Roberts

Administrator – Sam is an experienced administrator who has worked in the Dalton Nuclear Institute since 2012, providing day-to-day support to the team and to Dalton-led events. She has worked on several nuclear projects including NNUMAN, EPSRC Compositional and Structural Evolution of Plutonium Dioxide, and the NWS Research Support Office

Alice Seaman

Outreach and Communications Assistant Undergraduate Placement – Alice is taking a year out of her BA Geography at The University of Manchester to undertake a placement with the Dalton Nuclear Institute.

Clint Sharrad

Deputy Director, Professor of Nuclear Engineering – Clint has more than 20 years’ experience in translating the understanding of radionuclide behaviour in various systems to support developing and optimising engineered processes across the entire nuclear fuel cycle. He is the lead for the Nuclear Engineering, Science and Technology (NEST) facility and the Molten Salts in Nuclear Technology Laboratory National Nuclear User Facility.

Richard Taylor

Associate Director and BNFL Chair in Nuclear Energy Systems - Richard was previously the Chief Engineer of the UK’s National Nuclear Laboratory. Richard has over 30 years of experience within the UK nuclear industry. He is a professional engineer with a background in the design, construction and commissioning of nuclear facilities. Richard is a co-founder of The Beam nuclear and social research network.

Energy research beacon

The University of Manchester’s research beacons are examples of pioneering discoveries, interdisciplinary collaboration and cross-sector partnerships that are tackling some of the biggest challenges facing the planet.  Discover more about our Energy research beacon.

• Edward Dobson - Energy Beacon Communications and Marketing Manager

Explore our research community

Learn about our researchers using the University's Research Explorer.

Find our researchers

Cumbria staff

See a list of the leadership and administrative staff based at the Dalton Cumbrian Facility.

Cumbria staff (A-Z)

Get the latest news, blogs and videos from the Office of Nuclear Energy in your inbox. Sign up here .

Nuclear Milestones

Press Releases

Current topics.

Contact secretariat@igdtp.eu

RWM launches its Research Support Office

RWM has established a Research Support Office (RSO) to build a long-term collaborative and strategic relationship with UK universities.  The RSO has a Core team, hosted at the Dalton Nuclear Institute, composed of RWM and representatives from The University of Manchester and The University of Sheffield.  Spokes reach out from this ‘Hub’, accessing other universities and academic institutions across the following nine key discipline areas:

• Environmental sciences
• Radiochemistry
• Geosciences
• Materials science
• Engineering and Advanced manufacturing
• Applied mathematics
• Social science
• Public Communication

In each discipline area an academic lead is paired with RWM subject matter experts to identify and address the research priorities required to underpin delivery of a geological disposal facility (GDF) for the UK.

On 16-18 September the RSO held its first event with the academic community. Spanning three mornings, this virtual event provided the first opportunity to present the aims and objectives of the RSO to the wider academic community, provide an update on the GDF programme which drives our research needs, and share details on funding opportunities and practicalities. The launch event had many highlights, including a guest talk by Dr Allan Hedin, SKB’s Manager of Safety Assessments on the interplay between research and the safety case in the Swedish licensing process. International collaboration is of major importance to the success of the UK programme and it was great to share the story of one of our sister organisations with a more advanced programme, reinforcing that geological disposal is internationally recognised as the best approach.

Another highlight was our interactive workshop on the final morning, led by Simon Norris: exploiting the online technology and ‘breakout rooms’ to engage with 55 expert researchers to help RWM and the RSO develop a funding call in the area of gas generation, migration and reactivity – an important topic for the GDF safety case.  The level of engagement in this workshop demonstrated the RSO’s partnership approach and gave a true sense of collaboration between RWM and the academic community.

Over the course of the event the RSO received hugely constructive and positive questions and comments from the participants which will help develop the RSO as we go forward.  In total we welcomed 13 UK Universities, numerous research and supply chain organisations, international WMOs, and regulators; totalling over 130 participants across the 3 days.

Full details of the RSO can be found on the website: www.research-support-office-gdf.ac.uk where all presentations from the workshop are now available and where you can register to receive updates on progress, future events and funding opportunities.

For further information contact Lucy Bailey , Head of Research Support Office, RWM

IGD-TP Members Participating in the Activity

Nuclear Waste Services (NWS) [Previously RWM]

Member of Executive Group

Nuclear Waste Services (changed from Radioactive Waste Management Limited in 2022)

Contact: Jonathan Martin Send message

• Share full article

Sickened by U.S. Nuclear Program, Communities Turn to Congress for Aid

In St. Louis and around the country, people harmed by the drive for an atomic bomb have been shut out of a federal law enacted to help such victims.

Hundreds of thousands of tons of nuclear waste from a St. Louis factory were dumped over decades, seeping into the soil and nearby Coldwater Creek. Credit... Bryan Birks for The New York Times

Supported by

By Catie Edmondson

Catie Edmondson, who covers Congress, surveyed St. Louis’s radioactive contamination from three sites, including the banks of Coldwater Creek.

• Published April 6, 2024 Updated April 8, 2024

When Diane Scheig’s father, Bill, came home from work at the Mallinckrodt factory in St. Louis, he would strip down in their garage and hand his clothes to her mother to immediately wash, not daring to contaminate the house with the residue of his labors.

Mr. Scheig, an ironworker who helped build the city’s famous arch, never told their family exactly what he was doing at the plant, where scientists first began processing uranium for the Manhattan Project in 1942. But by the age of 49, he had developed kidney cancer, lost his ability to walk, and died.

Decades later, Diane’s older sister Sheryle, who years earlier had given birth to a baby boy born with a softball-sized tumor in his stomach, died of brain and lung cancer at 54. Her neighbor two doors down died of appendix cancer at 49. So many of her classmates have died of cancer that a large round table covered with their pictures is now a staple of her high school reunions.

“I know for myself, I was thankful when I passed the age of 49,” Ms. Scheig said. “And I was thankful when I passed the age of 54.”

The Mallinckrodt plant processed the uranium that allowed scientists at the University of Chicago to produce the first man-made controlled nuclear reaction, paving the way for the first atomic bomb.

But the factory — and the program it served — left another legacy: A plague of cancer, autoimmune diseases and other mysterious illnesses has ripped through generations of families like Ms. Scheig’s in St. Louis, and other communities across the country that were exposed to the materials used to power the nuclear arms race.

Now Congress is working on legislation that would allow people harmed by the program but so far shut out of a federal law enacted to aid its victims — including in New Mexico, Arizona, Tennessee and Washington state — to receive federal compensation.

A Toxic Legacy

In the 1940s, as workers churned out 50,000 tons of uranium to feed the nation’s nascent atomic arsenal, the factory was also spitting out heaps of nuclear waste.

Over the next several decades, hundreds of thousands of tons of radioactive waste stored in open steel drums were hauled and dumped across the city. The waste seeped into large swaths of soil, including on land that later became ball fields.

And it drained into Coldwater Creek, a tributary that snakes through the metropolitan area for 19 miles through backyards and public parks where children play and catch crayfish. In heavy storms, the creek routinely floods.

There are similar stories across the country, among the Navajo workers in New Mexico and Arizona who were sent into mines with a bucket and a shovel to dig up uranium and were never told about the dangers; the children of workers at uranium processing plants in Tennessee and Washington state; and the downwinders across the Southwest who breathed in the fallout from the mushroom clouds of aboveground tests.

None of those communities qualify for aid under the only federal law to compensate civilians who sustained serious illnesses from the nation’s nuclear weapons program. Passed in 1990, that statute was narrowly constructed to help some uranium miners and a handful of communities who were present for aboveground testing. Claimants, who can include children or grandchildren of those who would have benefited from the program but have since died, receive a one-time payment of $50,000 to $100,000.

The Senate last month passed legislation led by Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, and Senator Ben Ray Luján, Democrat of New Mexico, that would update and dramatically expand the law to include thousands of new participants, including Missouri families like the Scheigs.

If Congress does not pass the bill before June, the law will expire altogether, shuttering the fund for those who are currently eligible and cutting off access to cancer screening clinics in neighborhoods that have been hit hard by radioactive exposure and rely on federal money to continue operating.

To read their legislation is to visualize a map of the physical and psychic toll the nation’s nuclear weapons’ legacy has seared into communities across the country, years after the first atomic test in southern New Mexico.

“It speaks to the enormity of the burden,” Mr. Hawley, a conservative Republican who is up for re-election this year, said in an interview. “It speaks to the heroism of these people who, for 50-plus years in almost all these cases, have borne the burden themselves. Some of my colleagues complained about the cost. Well, who do they think is bearing the cost now?”

For years, momentum to expand the nuclear compensation program had sputtered along in fits and starts on Capitol Hill, adopted by various lawmakers who inched it forward but were not able to secure a vote in the House or Senate.

But it got a shot in the arm when Mr. Hawley took up the issue, working with Mr. Luján to draft legislation and using his perch on the Armed Services Committee to attach it to the annual defense policy bill.

When the measure was stripped out of the final version of the legislation after Republicans objected to its hefty price tag, which congressional scorekeepers estimated could hit $140 billion, the senators went back to the drawing board. Cutting out expansive new provisions that would have forced the federal government to cover victims’ medical fees, Mr. Hawley and Mr. Luján also added new communities, enticing more senators to support the bill now that it would benefit their states.

When the measure finally got a vote on the Senate floor last month — made possible after some horse-trading between Mr. Hawley and Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the minority leader — it passed 69 to 30.

‘Bleeding Through’

St. Louis’s radioactive fate was decided over lunch at the elite Noonday Club in the city’s downtown in 1942, when Arthur Compton, a top administrator of the Manhattan Project and the former head of physics at Washington University, met with Edward Mallinckrodt Jr. , a scientist who ran his family’s chemical and pharmaceutical company. Three other companies had already refused Mr. Compton’s request — to begin refining uranium for the development of the bomb. Mr. Mallinckrodt, a longtime friend of Mr. Compton, said yes.

Eight decades later, the consequences of that decision are immediately visible on a drive through St. Louis. Cleanup of the creek is expected to take until 2038, according to The Missouri Independent.

At the site of the old airport, where the first radioactive waste from the plant was stored, workers clad in white Tyvek hazardous materials suits with bright yellow boots can be seen from the highway, digging into the ground behind fences adorned with yellow warning signs and next to rail cars loaded with contaminated soil.

Some miles down is the West Lake landfill , a pit holding thousands of tons of radioactive waste that originated at Mallinckrodt and was illegally dumped in an area now surrounded by chain restaurants, warehouses, and a hospital. By 2010, a growing underground fire about 1,000 feet from the radioactive material was discovered.

Around the same time, Kim Visintine, an engineer-turned-medical professional, began to realize in conversations with friends that the rate at which their families and classmates were falling ill with serious, rare cancers “was just historically way beyond the norm,” she said. Ms. Visintine’s son, Zach, was born with glioblastoma — the most aggressive type of brain tumor — and died at age 6.

She started a Facebook page called “ Coldwater Creek — Just the Facts ” and began mapping reports of serious illnesses linked to radiation, coloring in heavily affected neighborhoods in shades of red. There were soon thousands of examples.

“It just looked like it was bleeding through,” Ms. Visintine said of the red on the maps.

Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down

The illnesses have stretched across the city, and reached deep into family trees.

Carl Chappell’s father, a chemical operator, used to walk to work at the plant in the early 1950s, until he began working at the company’s sprawling Hematite facility , where scientists researched and produced high-enriched nuclear fuel. It was there, in 1956, that his father was exposed to a radiation spill.

“We didn’t know that that was radioactive,” Mr. Chappell recalled in an interview. “All we knew was he was exposed to some toxic chemical spill and hospitalized for a few days or several days down there until he was released to come home.”

Eight years later, his father was diagnosed with renal cancer. Within another eight years, he had died. He was 48.

Decades later, at the age of 40, Mr. Chappell’s son Stephen was diagnosed with a rare kind of mucinous cancer that began in his appendix and spread throughout his abdomen. He died at 44.

For some families, developing cancer feels inevitable. Kay Hake’s father, Marvin, was an engineer at the Mallinckrodt plant and survived bladder, prostate and skin cancer. Her husband, John, who worked as a heavy equipment operator, was among a team of workers dispatched years ago to help clean up toxic waste from another of Mallinckrodt’s uranium plants . Sometimes he was given protective equipment to wear, but other times he was not.

“Every time we get sick, we think it’s probably cancer,” Mr. Hake said in a recent interview over coffee. “Sometimes we’re planning for the future and it’s like, ‘Let’s not plan too far and try to enjoy our lives more.’ Because we don’t know if we’re going to make it.”

“It’s not if it’s going to happen,” Ms. Hake added. “It’s when.”

Christen Commuso, who grew up near the creek and has lobbied extensively for the expansion of the program through her work for the Missouri Coalition for the Environment, has found a small comfort in hoping that the suffering in her family will stop with her.

After Ms. Commuso developed thyroid cancer, doctors removed her thyroid, adrenal gland, gallbladder and eventually her uterus and ovaries. At first, Ms. Commuso said in an interview, she “really mourned the loss of my ability to have my own children.”

“But at the same time, there’s a part of me that feels like well, maybe it was a blessing in disguise,” she added. “Because I didn’t pass something down to a new generation.”

She was in the Senate chamber in March when lawmakers approved the legislation to expand the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to cover Missourians like her. Just the provision in the existing law to fund screening clinics for survivors would help, she said, because she sometimes skips doctor’s appointments when she cannot afford them.

“I wanted to clap and scream and holler” when it passed, Ms. Commuso said.

But she also found it jarring to see how nonchalant senators were as they voted on her fate — with a customary thumbs up or thumbs down to the Senate clerk.

“To watch people kind of give a thumbs up or a thumbs down on your life — and does your life matter to them? It’s like, what do you have to say and do to convince people that you matter?”

An earlier version of this article misstated the month in which the Senate passed legislation to expand a federal law compensating victims of nuclear waste radiation. The bill was passed last month, not this month. The article also misstated the location of the first atomic bomb test. It was at a site in southern New Mexico, not at Los Alamos, N.M.

How we handle corrections

Catie Edmondson covers Congress for The Times. More about Catie Edmondson

Advertisement

The Role of Environmental NGOs: Russian Challenges, American Lessons: Proceedings of a Workshop (2001)

Chapter: 14 problems of waste management in the moscow region, problems of waste management in the moscow region.

Department of Natural Resources of the Central Region of Russia

The scientific and technological revolution of the twentieth century has turned the world over, transformed it, and presented humankind with new knowledge and innovative technologies that previously seemed to be fantasies. Man, made in the Creator’s own image, has indeed become in many respects similar to the Creator. Primitive thinking and consumerism as to nature and natural resources seem to be in contrast to this background. Drastic deterioration of the environment has become the other side of the coin that gave the possibility, so pleasant for the average person, to buy practically everything that is needed.

A vivid example of man’s impact as “a geological force” (as Academician V. I. Vernadsky described contemporary mankind) is poisoning of the soil, surface and underground waters, and atmosphere with floods of waste that threaten to sweep over the Earth. Ecosystems of our planet are no longer capable of “digesting” ever-increasing volumes of waste and new synthetic chemicals alien to nature.

One of the most important principles in achieving sustainable development is to limit the appetite of public consumption. A logical corollary of this principle suggests that the notion “waste” or “refuse” should be excluded not only from professional terminology, but also from the minds of people, with “secondary material resources” as a substitute concept for them. In my presentation I would like to dwell on a number of aspects of waste disposal. It is an ecological, economic, and social problem for the Moscow megalopolis in present-day conditions.

PRESENT SITUATION WITH WASTE IN MOSCOW

Tens of thousand of enterprises and research organizations of practically all branches of the economy are amassed over the territory of 100,000 hectares: facilities of energy, chemistry and petrochemistry; metallurgical and machine-building works; and light industrial and food processing plants. Moscow is occupying one of the leading places in the Russian Federation for the level of industrial production. The city is the greatest traffic center and bears a heavy load in a broad spectrum of responsibilities as capital of the State. The burden of technogenesis on the environment of the city of Moscow and the Moscow region is very considerable, and it is caused by all those factors mentioned above. One of the most acute problems is the adverse effect of the huge volumes of industrial and consumer wastes. Industrial waste has a great variety of chemical components.

For the last ten years we witnessed mainly negative trends in industrial production in Moscow due to the economic crisis in the country. In Moscow the largest industrial works came practically to a standstill, and production of manufactured goods declined sharply. At the same time, a comparative analysis in 1998–99 of the indexes of goods and services output and of resource potential showed that the coefficient of the practical use of natural resources per unit of product, which had been by all means rather low in previous years, proceeded gradually to decrease further. At present we have only 25 percent of the industrial output that we had in 1990, but the volume of water intake remains at the same level. Fuel consumption has come down only by 18 percent, and the amassed production waste diminished by only 50 percent. These figures indicate the growing indexes of resource consumption and increases in wastes from industrial production.

Every year about 13 million tons of different kinds of waste are accumulated in Moscow: 42 percent from water preparation and sewage treatment, 25 percent from industry, 13 percent from the construction sector, and 20 percent from the municipal economy.

The main problem of waste management in Moscow city comes from the existing situation whereby a number of sites for recycling and disposal of certain types of industrial waste and facilities for storage of inert industrial and building wastes are situated outside the city in Moscow Region, which is subject to other laws of the Russian Federation. Management of inert industrial and building wastes, which make up the largest part of the general volume of wastes and of solid domestic wastes (SDW), simply means in everyday practice their disposal at 46 sites (polygons) in Moscow Region and at 200 disposal locations that are completely unsuitable from the ecological point of view.

The volume of recycled waste is less than 10–15 percent of the volume that is needed. Only 8 percent of solid domestic refuse is destroyed (by incineration). If we group industrial waste according to risk factor classes, refuse that is not

dangerous makes up 80 percent of the total volume, 4th class low-hazard wastes 14 percent, and 1st-3rd classes of dangerous wastes amount to 3.5 percent. The largest part of the waste is not dangerous—up to 32 percent. Construction refuse, iron and steel scrap, and non-ferrous metal scrap are 15 percent. Paper is 12 percent, and scrap lumber is 4 percent. Metal scrap under the 4th class of risk factor makes up 37 percent; wood, paper, and polymers more than 8 percent; and all-rubber scrap 15 percent. So, most refuse can be successfully recycled and brought back into manufacturing.

This is related to SDW too. The morphological composition of SDW in Moscow is characterized by a high proportion of utilizable waste: 37.6 percent in paper refuse, 35.2 percent in food waste, 10 percent in polymeric materials, 7 percent in glass scrap, and about 5 percent in iron, steel, and non-ferrous metal scrap. The paper portion in commercial wastes amounts to 70 percent of the SDW volume.

A number of programs initiated by the Government of Moscow are underway for the collection and utilization of refuse and for neutralization of industrial and domestic waste. A waste-recycling industry is being developed in the city of Moscow, mostly for manufacturing recycled products and goods. One of the most important ecological problems is the establishment in the region of ecologically safe facilities for the disposal of dangerous wastes of 1st and 2nd class risk factors.

Pre-planned industrial capacities for thermal neutralization of SDW will be able to take 30 percent of domestic waste and dangerous industrial waste. Construction of rubbish-burning works according to the old traditional approach is not worthwhile and should come to an end. Waste-handling stations have been under construction in the city for the last five years. In two years there will be six such stations which will make it possible to reduce the number of garbage trucks from 1,156 to 379 and to reduce the amount of atmospheric pollution they produce. In addition the switch to building stations with capacity of briquetting one ton of waste into a cubic meter will decrease the burden on waste disposal sites and prolong their life span by 4–5 fold. Trash hauling enterprises will also make profit because of lower transportation costs.

Putting into operation waste-segregation complexes (10–12 sites) would reduce volumes of refuse to disposal sites by 40 percent—that is 1,200,000 tons per year. The total volume of burned or recycled SDW would reach 2,770,000 tons a year. A total of 210,000 tons of waste per year would be buried. So, in the course of a five year period, full industrial recycling of SDW could be achieved in practice.

Collection of segregated waste is one of the important elements in effective disposal and utilization of SDW. It facilitates recycling of waste and return of secondary material into the manufacturing process. Future trends in segregation and collection of SDW will demand wide popularization and improvement of the ecological culture and everyday behavior of people.

In recent years the high increase in the number of cars in Moscow has brought about not only higher pollution of the atmosphere, but also an avalanche-like accumulation of refuse from vehicles. Besides littering residential and recreation areas, cars represent a source for toxic pollution of land and reservoirs. At the same time, automobile wastes are a good source for recycled products. In the short-term outlook, Moscow has to resolve the problem of collection and utilization of decommissioned vehicles and automobile wastes with particular emphasis on activities of the private sector. Setting up a system for collection and utilization of bulky domestic waste and electronic equipment refuse is also on the priority list.

In 1999 in Moscow the following volumes of secondary raw materials were produced or used in the city or were recycled: 300,000 tons of construction waste, 296,000 tons of metal scrap, 265 tons of car battery lead, 21,000 tons of glass, 62,500 tons of paper waste, 4,328 tons of oil-bearing waste, and 306 tons of refuse from galvanizing plants.

Such traditional secondary materials as metal scrap and paper waste are not recycled in Moscow but are shipped to other regions of Russia.

The worldwide practice of sorting and recycling industrial and domestic wastes demands the establishment of an industry for secondary recycling. Otherwise segregation of waste becomes ineffective.

There are restraining factors for the development of an effective system of assorted selection, segregation, and use of secondary raw resources, namely lack of sufficient manufacturing capacities and of suitable technologies for secondary recycling.

The problem of utilization of wastes is closely linked with the problem of modernization and sometimes even demands fundamental restructuring of industries. The practical use of equipment for less energy consumption and a smaller volume of wastes and a transition to the use of alternative raw materials are needed. Large enterprises—the main producers of dangerous wastes—are in a difficult financial situation now, which is an impediment for proceeding along these lines.

Private and medium-size enterprises are becoming gradually aware of the economic profitability in rational use of waste. For example, the firm Satory started as a transportation organization specialized in removal of scrap from demolished buildings and those undergoing reconstruction. It now benefits from recycling of waste, having developed an appropriate technology for the dismantling of buildings with segregation of building waste. So, as it has been already mentioned above, the first task for Moscow is to establish a basis for waste recycling.

HOW TO CHANGE THE SITUATION WITH WASTE

Transition to modern technologies in the utilization of wastes requires either sufficient investments or a considerable increase in repayment for waste on the part of the population. Obviously, these two approaches are not likely to be realized in the near future.

The recovery of one ton of SDW with the use of ecologically acceptable technology requires not less than $70–100.

Given the average per capita income in 1999 and the likely increase up to the year of 2005, in 2005 it will be possible to receive from a citizen not more than $14 per year. This means that the cost of technology should not exceed $40 per ton of recycled waste. Unfortunately, this requirement can fit only unsegregated waste disposal at the polygons (taking into account an increase in transportation costs by the year 2005).

Such being the case, it looks like there is only one acceptable solution for Russia to solve the problem of waste in an up-to-date manner: to introduce trade-in value on packaging and on some manufactured articles.

In recent years domestic waste includes more and more beverage containers. Plastic and glass bottles, aluminium cans, and packs like Tetrapak stockpiled at disposal sites will soon reach the same volumes as in western countries. In Canada, for example, this kind of waste amounts to one-third of all domestic waste.

A characteristic feature of this kind of waste is that the packaging for beverages is extremely durable and expensive. Manufactured from polyethylene terephthalate (PTA) and aluminum, it is sometimes more expensive than the beverage it contains.

What are the ways for solving the problem? Practically all of them are well-known, but most will not work in Russia in present conditions. The first problem relates to collection of segregated waste in the urban sector and in the services sector. A number of reasons make this system unrealistic, specifically in large cities. Sorting of waste at waste-briquetting sites and at polygons is possible. But if we take into account the present cost of secondary resources, this system turns out to be economically unprofitable and cannot be widely introduced.

The introduction of deposits on containers for beverages is at present the most acceptable option for Russia. This system turned out to be most effective in a number of countries that have much in common with Russia. In fact this option is not at all new for us. Surely, all people remember the price of beer or kefir bottles. A system of deposit for glass bottles was in operation in the USSR, and waste sites were free from hundreds of millions of glass bottles and jars. We simply need to reinstate this system at present in the new economic conditions according to new types and modes of packaging. Deposits could be introduced also on glass bottles and jars, PTA and other plastic bottles, aluminium cans, and Tetrapak packing.

Let us investigate several non-ecological aspects of this problem, because the ecological impact of secondary recycling of billions of bottles, cans, and packs is quite obvious.

Most of the population in Russia lives below the poverty line. When people buy bottles of vodka, beer, or soft drinks, they will have to pay a deposit value (10–20 kopeks for a bottle). The poorest people will carry the bottles to receiving points. A system of collection of packaging will function by itself. Only receiving points are needed. Millions of rubles that are collected will be redistributed among the poorest people for their benefit, and a social problem of the poor will be solved to a certain extent not by charity, but with normal economic means.

A second point is also well-known. In a market economy one of the most important problems is that of employment. What happens when the trade-in value is introduced?

Thousands of new jobs are created at receiving points and at enterprises that recycle glass, plastics, etc. And we don’t need a single penny from the state budget. More than that, these enterprises will pay taxes and consume products of other branches of industry, thus yielding a return to the budget, not to mention income tax from new jobs.

There is another aspect of the matter. Considerable funding is needed from budgets of local governments, including communal repayments for waste collection and disposal at polygons and incinerators. Reduction of expenses for utilization of waste can be significant support for housing and communal reform in general.

It is practically impossible to evaluate in general an ecological effect when thousands of tons of waste will cease to occupy plots of land near cities as long-term disposal sites. Operation costs of receiving points and transportation costs could be covered by funds obtained from manufacturers and from returned packaging. Besides, when a waste recycling industry develops and becomes profitable, recycling factories will be able to render partial support to receiving points.

Trade-in value can be introduced on all types of packaging except milk products and products for children. It could amount to 15 or 30 kopecks per container, depending on its size. If all plastic bottles with water and beer are sold with trade-in value only in Moscow, the total sum will reach 450 million rubles a year. If we include glass bottles, aluminum cans, and packets, the sum will be one billion rubles. This sum will be redistributed at receiving points among people with scanty means when they receive the money for used packaging and jobs at receiving points and at recycling factories.

The bottleneck of the problem now is the absence in Russia of high technology industries for waste recycling. It can be resolved rather easily. At the first stage, used packaging can be sold as raw material for enterprises, including those overseas. There is unrestricted demand for PTA and aluminum on the part

of foreign firms. When waste collection mechanisms are established, there will be limited investments in this branch of industry.

With regard to the inexhaustible source of free raw material, this recycling industry will become one of the most reliable from the point of view of recoupment of investments. The Government, regional authorities, the population, and of course ecologists should all be interested in having such a law.

The same should be done with sales of cars, tires, and car batteries. Prices of every tire or battery should be higher by 30–50 rubles. These sums of money should be returned back to a buyer or credited when he buys a new tire or a new battery. For sure, such being the case we will not find used batteries thrown about the city dumps. In this case the task is even simpler because there are already a number of facilities for the recycling of tires and batteries.

In fact, a law of trade-in value can change the situation with waste in Russia in a fundamental way. Russian legislation has already been prepared, and the concept of an ecological tax has been introduced in the new Internal Revenue Code. Now it needs to be competently introduced. The outlay for waste recycling has to become a type of ecological tax. To realize this task much work has to be done among the deputies and with the Government. Public ecological organizations, including international ones, should play a leading role.

ACTIVITY OF PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS IN THE SPHERE OF WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE MOSCOW REGION

We know examples of the ever increasing role of the general public in the solution of the problem of waste utilization, first of all in those countries that have well-developed democratic institutions. “Fight Against Waste” is one of the popular slogans of public organizations abroad. Public opinion has brought about measures of sanitary cleaning in cities, secured better work by municipal services, shut down hazardous industries, and restricted and prohibited incineration facilities. Nevertheless, the struggle against wastes in the economically developed countries, being a manifestation of an advanced attitude towards the environment, has in the long run brought about a paradoxical result. Transfer of hazardous industries to countries with lower environmental standards and inadequate public support—Russia, as an example—has made the world even more dangerous from the ecological point of view.

Russia has just embarked on the path of formation of environmental public movements by the establishment of nongovernmental organizations. Representatives of nongovernmental organizations from Russia took part in the international gathering in Bonn in March 2000 of nongovernmental organizations that are members of the International Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Elimination Network. A declaration against incineration was adopted in

Bonn by nongovernmental organizations, which called for elaboration of effective alternative technologies for utilization of waste and safe technologies for elimination of existing stockpiles of POP.

Quite a number of environmental organizations are operating now in Moscow. First to be mentioned is the All-Russia Society for the Conservation of Nature, which was established in Soviet times. There are other nongovernmental organizations: Ecosoglasiye, Ecolain, Ecological Union, and the Russian branches of Green Cross and Greenpeace. All these organizations collect and popularize environmental information and organize protest actions against policies of the Government or local administrations on ecological matters. A new political party—Russia’s Movement of the Greens—is being formed.

Laws currently in force in the Russian Federation (“On Protection of the Environment,” “On State Ecological Examination by Experts,” “On Production and Consumption of Waste”) declare the right of the public to participate in environmental examination of projects that are to be implemented, including those on the establishment of facilities for elimination and disposition of waste. Public examinations can be organized by the initiative of citizens and public associations. For example, under the law of Moscow “On Protection of the Rights of Citizens while Implementing Decisions on Construction Projects in Moscow,” public hearings are organized by the city’s boards. Decisions taken by local authorities, at referenda and public meetings, may be the very reason for carrying out public examinations. Such examinations are conducted mainly by commissions, collectives, or ad hoc groups of experts. Members of public examination panels are responsible for the accuracy and validity of their expert evaluations in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation. A decision of a public environmental panel has an informative nature as a recommendation, but it becomes legally mandatory after its approval by the appropriate body of the State. Besides, the opinion of the public is taken into account when a project submitted for state environmental review has undergone public examinations and there are supporting materials.

Public environmental examination is supposed to draw the attention of state bodies to a definite site or facility and to disseminate well-grounded information about potential ecological risks. This important facet of public environmental organizations in Moscow and in Russia is very weak. To a large extent, it can be explained by an insufficient level of specific and general knowledge of ecology even on the part of the environmentalists themselves. Lack of knowledge on the part of ordinary citizens and public groups and inadequate information (for various reasons) produce alarm-motivated behavior by those who harm the organization of environmental activity in general and waste management in particular.

There are nevertheless positive examples of public participation in designing policies of local authorities in the waste management sphere.

Speaking about the Moscow region we can point to the very productive work of the Public Ecological Commission attached to the Council of Deputies in Pushchino, in Moscow Oblast.

The population of Pushchino is 21,000. The polygon for solid biological wastes (SBW) has practically exhausted its capacities. In 1996, in order to find a way out, the Administration of the town showed an interest in a proposal made by the Austrian firm FMW to support financially the construction of an electric power station in the vicinity of the town that would operate using both fuel briquettes and SBW of the town. The briquettes would be manufactured in Turkey and would contain 70 percent Austrian industrial waste with added oil sludge. It was also envisaged that during the construction period of the electric power station, 300,000 tons of briquettes would be shipped and stockpiled. The original positive decision was annulled due to an independent evaluation of the project organized by the Public Ecological Commission.

The general public of Puschino put forward a counter proposal before the Administration in order to reduce volumes of SBW disposal at the polygon and to prolong its operation—segregation of SBW (food waste, paper refuse, fabrics, metal, glass, used car batteries). As a result, a new scheme for sanitary measures in the town was worked out in 1998, which on the basis of segregation of waste provided for a considerable decrease in refuse flow to the polygon. Unfortunately, for lack of finances in the town budget, the scheme has not been introduced to the full extent. But in spite of severe shortages of special containers for segregated wastes, a network of receiving points for secondary materials was set up.

One of the pressing tasks for greater public activity is wide popularization of environmental knowledge on waste management, especially among the young generation. There is a very important role for public organizations to play in this domain when enlightenment and education are becoming a primary concern of nongovernmental organizations. Referring again to the example of the Public Ecological Commission in Pushchino, I have to underline that this organization is taking an active part in the enlightenment of the population through organizing exhibitions, placing publications in the press, and spurring school children into action to encourage cleaning of the town by means of environmental contests, seminars, and conferences. Children help the Commission organize mobile receiving points for secondary material. They even prepare announcements and post them around the town calling on the citizens to take valuable amounts of domestic wastes and car batteries to receiving points.

There are other examples of a growing influence of public organizations on the policy of administration in the sphere of waste management in the Moscow region. The Moscow Children’s Ecological Center has worked out the Program “You, He, She and I—All Together Make Moscow Clean,” which is being introduced with the support of the Moscow Government. In the framework of this program, children collect waste paper at schools, and they are taught how to

be careful about the environment and material resources. The storage facilities agreed to support the initiative. They buy waste paper at a special price for school children. Then, the schools spend the earned money for excursions, laboratory equipment, books, and plant greenery.

Another example of an enlightened activity is a project realized in 1999 by the firm Ecoconcord on producing video-clips for TV about the adverse effects of waste incineration and the illegality of unauthorized storage of waste.

The name Ecoconcord speaks for the main purpose of this organization—to achieve mutual understanding between the general public and governmental organizations, to encourage public involvement in decision-making, and to promote the formation of policy bodies that would not let public opinion be ignored.

Proceeding from the global task of integrating the activities of interested parties in lessening adverse waste pollution, public organizations have to cooperate with authorities and not stand against them. Cooperation and consensus between governmental and nongovernmental organizations in working out strategies and tactics in waste management should become a prerequisite in successful realization of state policy in this sphere in the Russian Federation.

An NRC committee was established to work with a Russian counterpart group in conducting a workshop in Moscow on the effectiveness of Russian environmental NGOs in environmental decision-making and prepared proceedings of this workshop, highlighting the successes and difficulties faced by NGOs in Russia and the United States.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

MIT Technology Review

• Newsletters

How to reopen a nuclear power plant

Palisades Power Plant in Michigan could be the first shut-down nuclear plant to restart operations.

• Casey Crownhart archive page

A shut-down nuclear power plant in Michigan could get a second life thanks to a $1.52 billion loan from the US Department of Energy. If successful, it will be the first time a shuttered nuclear power plant reopens in the US.  

Palisades Power Plant shut down on May 20, 2022, after 50 years of generating low-carbon electricity. But the plant’s new owner thinks economic conditions have improved in the past few years and plans to reopen by the end of 2025.

A successful restart would be a major milestone for the US nuclear fleet, and the reactor’s 800 megawatts of capacity could help inch the country closer to climate goals. But reopening isn’t as simple as flipping on a light switch—there are technical, administrative, and regulatory hurdles ahead before Palisades can start operating again. Here’s what it takes to reopen a nuclear power plant.

Step 1: Stay ready

One of the major reasons Palisades has any shot of restarting is that the site’s new owner has been planning on this for years. “Technically, the stars had all aligned for the plant to stay operating,” says Patrick White, research director at the Nuclear Innovation Alliance, a nonprofit think tank.

Holtec International supplies equipment for nuclear reactors and waste and provides services like decommissioning nuclear plants. Holtec originally purchased Palisades with the intention of shutting it down, taking apart the facilities, and cleaning up the site. The company has decommissioned other recently shuttered nuclear plants, including Indian Point Energy Center in New York. 

Changing economic conditions have made continued operation too expensive to justify for many nuclear power plants, especially smaller ones. Those with a single, relatively small reactor, like Palisades, have been the most vulnerable.  

Once a nuclear power plant shuts down, it can quickly become difficult to start it back up. As with a car left out in the yard, White says, “you expect some degradation.” Maintenance and testing of critical support systems might slow down or stop. Backup diesel generators, for example, would need to be checked and tested regularly while a reactor is online, but they likely wouldn’t be treated the same way after a plant’s shutdown, White says.

Holtec took possession of Palisades in 2022 after the reactor shut down and the fuel was removed. Even then, there were already calls to keep the plant’s low-carbon power on the grid, says Nick Culp, senior manager for government affairs and communications at Holtec.

The company quickly pivoted and decided to try to keep the plant open, so records and maintenance work largely continued. “It looks like it shut down yesterday,” Culp says.

Because of the continued investment of time and resources, starting the plant back up will be more akin to restarting after a regular refueling or maintenance outage than starting a fully defunct plant. After maintenance is finished and fresh fuel loaded in, the Palisades reactor could restart and provide enough electricity for roughly 800,000 homes.

Step 2: Line up money and permission

Support has poured in for Palisades, with the state of Michigan setting aside $300 million in funding for the plant’s restart in the last two years. And now, the Department of Energy has issued a conditional loan commitment for $1.52 billion.

Holtec will need to meet certain technical and legal conditions to get the loan money, which will eventually be repaid with interest. (Holtec and the DOE Loan Programs Office declined to give more information about the loan’s conditions or timeline.)

The state funding and federal loan will help support the fixes and upgrades needed for the plant’s equipment and continue paying the approximately 200 workers who have stayed on since its shutdown. The plant employed about 700 people while it was operating, and the company is now working on rehiring additional workers to help with the restart, Culp says.  

One of the major remaining steps in a possible Palisades restart is getting authorization from regulators, as no plant in the US has restarted operations after shutting down. “We’re breaking new ground here,” says Jacopo Buongiorno, a professor of nuclear engineering at MIT. 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission oversees nuclear power plants in the US, but the agency doesn't have a specific regulatory framework for restarting operations at a nuclear power plant that has shut down and entered decommissioning, White says. The NRC created a panel that will oversee reopening efforts.

Palisades effectively gave up the legal right to operate when it shut down and took the fuel out of the reactor. Holtec will need to submit detailed plans to the NRC with information about how it plans to reopen and operate the plant safely. Holtec formally began the process of reauthorizing operations with the NRC in October 2023 and plans to submit the rest of its materials this year.

Step 3: Profit?

If regulators sign off, the plan is to have Palisades up and running again by the end of 2025. The fuel supply is already lined up, and the company has long-term buyers committed for the plant’s full power output, Culp says.

If all goes well, the plant could be generating power until at least 2051, 80 years after it originally began operations.

Expanded support for low-carbon electricity sources, and nuclear in particular, have helped make it possible to extend the life of older plants across the US. “This restart of a nuclear plant represents a sea change in support for clean firm power,” says Julie Kozeracki, a senior advisor for the US Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office.

As of last year, a majority of Americans (57%) support more nuclear power in the country, up from 43% in 2016, according to a poll from the Pew Research Center . There’s growing funding available for the technology as well, including billions of dollars in tax credits for nuclear and other low-carbon energy included in the Inflation Reduction Act . 

Growing support and funding, alongside rising electricity prices, contribute to making existing nuclear plants much more valuable than they were just a few years ago, says MIT’s Buongiorno. “Everything has changed,” he adds.   

But even a successful Palisades restart wouldn’t mean that we’ll see a wave of other shuttered nuclear plants reopening around the US. “This is a really rare case where you had someone doing a lot of forward thinking,” White says. For other plants that are nearing decommissioning, it would be cheaper, simpler, and more efficient to extend their operations rather than allowing them to shut down in the first place. 

Climate change and energy

The problem with plug-in hybrids their drivers..

Plug-in hybrids are often sold as a transition to EVs, but new data from Europe shows we’re still underestimating the emissions they produce.

Harvard has halted its long-planned atmospheric geoengineering experiment

The decision follows years of controversy and the departure of one of the program’s key researchers.

• James Temple archive page

Why hydrogen is losing the race to power cleaner cars

Batteries are dominating zero-emissions vehicles, and the fuel has better uses elsewhere.

Decarbonizing production of energy is a quick win 

Clean technologies, including carbon management platforms, enable the global energy industry to play a crucial role in the transition to net zero.

• ADNOC archive page

Stay connected

Get the latest updates from mit technology review.

Discover special offers, top stories, upcoming events, and more.

Thank you for submitting your email!

It looks like something went wrong.

We’re having trouble saving your preferences. Try refreshing this page and updating them one more time. If you continue to get this message, reach out to us at [email protected] with a list of newsletters you’d like to receive.