Indigenous views on nuclear energy and radioactive waste
https://cedar-project.org/indigenous/ 25 Nov 24
The Point Lepreau nuclear reactor is the only power reactor in Atlantic Canada. The nuclear plant, in New Brunswick on the Bay of Fundy, opened in 1983. The plant’s owner, the public utility NB Power, is also proposing to build two smaller, experimental, reactors on the nuclear site.
The affected Indigenous nations did not consent to the existing reactor, or the proposed new reactors, or the storage of radioactive waste on their homelands.
Since the Point Lepreau reactor started up 40 years ago, it has produced hundreds of tons of intensely radioactive high-level nuclear waste (used nuclear fuel) that NB Power is storing at the site in aging concrete silos less than a kilometre from the Bay of Fundy.
The CEDAR project’s Indigenous partners – Chief Hugh Akagi of the Passamaquoddy Recognition Group (PRGI) and Chief Ron Tremblay of the Wolastoq Grand Council– are concerned about the existing radioactive waste, that the reactor is continuing to produce more of it, and that the proposed experimental reactors, if built, will produce new forms of radioactive waste at the site.
Radioactivity cannot be turned off – that’s what makes it so dangerous. The radioactivity from high-level waste can take millennia to decay. If exposed, radioactivity can damage living tissue in a range of ways and can alter gene structure. For this reason, high-level waste must be kept isolated from living things for millennia.
The plan to manage the the new forms of waste from the proposed experimental reactors is unknown. NB Power plans to transport the high-level radioactive waste from the existing reactor by public roads through New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario to a proposed nuclear waste dump, a deep geological repository. Our project focused on the perspectives of Indigenous nations and communities in these three provinces on nuclear energy and radioactive waste.
In collaboration with CEDAR, the Passamaquoddy Recognition Group (PRGI) organized a meeting in Ottawa at the end of April 2024, inviting Indigenous leaders from communities in New Brunswick, Ontario and Quebec and representatives from NGOs across Canada involved in nuclear issues.
The purpose of the meeting was to share information and common concerns about: uranium mining and processing; nuclear energy and radioactive waste; the nuclear industry’s plans to transport radioactive waste through Indigenous homelands; industry proposals to develop radioactive waste dumps on Indigenous territories; plans to develop more nuclear reactors on Indigenous homelands that would produce even more, and new forms, of nuclear waste; and concerns about the close ties between the nuclear industry and the regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.
A press conference was held at the National Press Theatre in Ottawa. Participants were Chief Hugh Akagi and Kim Reeder of PRGI, Chief Ron Tremblay of the Wolastoq Grand Council, Councillor Peyton Pitawanakwat of Missisauga First Nation, and Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party of Canada. To watch the video of the press conference, click HERE. To read the media release, click HERE.
A team from Eleven North Visuals filmed interviews in Ottawa with Chief Akagi, Chief Tremblay and Councillor Pitawanakwat. Later they produced the video, Askomiw Ksanaqak (Forever Dangerous) – Indigenous Nations Resist Nuclear Colonialism, available for viewing on this page.
Following the Ottawa events, in the summer of 2024, a PRGI-CEDAR team in New Brunswick–including research assistants Abby Bartlett with the CEDAR project and Robbie Atwin with PRGI, supervised by CEDAR primary investigator Susan O’Donnell – worked on a report, Indigenous Views on Nuclear Energy and Radioactive Waste, available for download from this page. A French version is currently in development.
For the report, we analyzed 30 public statements about nuclear energy and radioactive waste by Indigenous communities in New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario. We also gathered more than 125 documents submitted to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) by Indigenous organizations in these three provinces.
The report – featuring photos of the Bay of Fundy by William (Eric) Altvater, a member of Passamaquoddy Nation in Maine – was co-published in November 2024 by PRGI and the CEDAR project. We are currently organizing an event at St. Thomas University to launch the report and the video.
The CEDAR-PRGI team and collaborators across Canada are now discussing the next steps for this work.
For more information, feedback on the report or the video, or to get in touch for any reason, contact the CEDAR team.
The CEDAR project is supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Canada (SSHRC).
Saugeen Ojibway Nation stands firm on nuclear waste decision despite South Bruce vote
By Adam Bell, November 2, 2024 , https://cknxnewstoday.ca/news/2024/11/01/saugeen-ojibway-nation-stands-firm-on-nuclear-waste-decision-despite-south-bruce-vote—
The Saugeen Ojibway Nation (SON) Joint Chiefs and Councils have issued a statement responding to the Municipality of South Bruce’s narrow referendum approval to host a Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for nuclear waste.
While South Bruce residents voted in favour, SON’s leadership underscored that the referendum outcome does not affect SON’s separate decision-making process regarding the DGR’s placement within its territory near Teeswater.
SON’s statement emphasized the Nation’s independent authority in determining if the proposed DGR would be allowed within its lands. Chiefs Greg Nadjiwon of the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation and Conrad Ritchie of the Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation clarified that any decision regarding hosting the facility would be based solely on SON’s evaluations and community input.
“We continue to thoroughly examine the potential impacts and benefits of this project through our own process, as the rights holders and authority within our Territory,” the Chiefs stated, reaffirming that SON’s community members will make the final decision.
SON leadership says key principles guiding their approach include its members’ exclusive authority to determine if the Nation consents to hosting a DGR, a community-driven decision-making process, and a commitment to engagement with members before seeking their input on whether to proceed.
The chiefs extended gratitude to the SON community for its commitment to protecting the lands and resources, with SON’s future decisions guided by member perspectives and environmental stewardship. They underscored a cautious approach that places SON interests, cultural responsibilities, and long-term impacts at the forefront.
While South Bruce Mayor Mark Goetz celebrated the high turnout and democratic process, he noted that SON and the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation still hold critical voices in the DGR site selection. Both First Nations must grant consent for the project to move forward.
In 2020, SON members voted to reject a DGR by a vote of 1,058 against and just 170 in favour.
The Anishinaabe community fighting nuclear waste dumping, one step at a time‘
‘There’s more fresh water in this part of the country than there is in the Great Lakes, and they want to destroy that’
Ricochet, Crystal Greene, September 23 2024
Every September long weekend for the past five years, Indigenous and non-Indigenous allies have walked together along the TransCanada Highway 17 to peacefully protest the proposed dumping of nuclear waste on Treaty 3 lands in northwestern Ontario.
Among the walkers at the annual Walk Against Nuclear Waste was an Anishinaabe grandmother, who started the walk in hopes that more people will “wake up” to what’s at stake with the possibility of a deep geological repository (DGR) that would contain all of Canada’s high-level nuclear waste within their watershed.
“This is my last year and I feel like I’m gonna miss it, but it was a good awareness. I’m okay with that,” Darlene Necan, told Ricochet Media as vehicles zoomed by on TransCanada Highway 17, many beeping their horns in support throughout the roadside interview.
On September 1, two groups left from Ignace and Wabigoon at the same time. Over two days the group of about 30 participants walked about 40 kilometres from each direction.
They all met up at a rest stop near Revell Lake, the site where the Nuclear Waste Management Organization has done exploration drilling for the potential $26-billion DGR, which would sit at headwaters of the Wabigoon River and Turtle River watersheds. The underground facility would be used to bury and abandon millions of bundles of spent fuel from Canadian nuclear power plants.
“We cannot foresee the future, but what if it does happen? What if there’s a leak?” Necan said. “The creator gifted us this beautiful land for all of us to live, but who are these people to come here and economically destroy it? Money is never going to last.”
Necan, 65, is also known for asserting Anishinaabe title by building a cabin on her traditional territory at Savant Lake, Ontario, without permits, after she grew tired of waiting for housing from her band, Ojibway Nation of Saugeen #258. She was charged under the Public Lands Act with construction on so-called Crown land.
It’s no surprise that she took on the responsibility to alert others about the NWMO’s plan to transport, bury and abandon the waste.
There is a strong sense of urgency as the NWMO is set to finalize its chosen waste site, narrowed down from a list of 22 locations in Canada, a process that began in 2010.
By the end of the year, NWMO will choose either the Revell Lake site, near where the walk ended, or a Bruce County site in southwestern Ontario.
Rather than having the radioactive waste shipped by truck or train for the next 50 plus years —which they foresee is an accident waiting to happen — walkers say they want to see the waste all kept where it originated from, and for Canada to stop producing nuclear energy altogether.
The NWMO is an industry-funded organization made up of representatives from Canada’s nuclear power industry who’ve been looking for a way to deal with the approximately 100,000 tonnes of waste they’ve produced that will be radioactive for tens of thousands of years.
In a report to the Standing Committee on Environmental and Sustainable Development, a northwestern Ontario coalition “We the Nuclear Free North” describes the flaws and weaknesses of the DGR project along with the serious risks expressed by experts.
“Numerous experts in the fields of geology, chemistry and physics warn of the insufficiency of current scientific knowledge to guide a project of the nature and magnitude of the NWMO’s proposed plan,” the coalition wrote .
Their report broke down NWMO’s “conceptual” plan.
The waste would be transported by truck and received at a fuel packaging plant where it would be placed into containers.
The water used during the process to decontaminate the devices used for the waste in-transit would become contaminated with radionuclides and moved into a tailings pond, and be contained as a low-to-medium level radioactive liquid waste.
The waste in containers would be lowered to the DGR underground storage facility, made up of rooms blasted out of precambrian rock, 500 to 1000 metres below the Earth’s surface.
Since there is no way for the high-level radioactive nuclear fuel to deactivate, except for time, it would continue to generate heat, years after being stored. It could lead to pressure build-up, causing fractures in the DGR walls, where the groundwater would seep in and mix with water-soluble radionuclides.
Eventually, the free-moving contaminated water would reach the two watersheds, through cracks in the DGR, and a sump pump would need to be used to bring liquid to a surface tailings pond.
Another risk to hosting a DGR in the Revell Lake area are low magnitude earthquakes that have been documented by Environment Canada. A quake could fracture the DGR and increase flow of water into the facility and send contaminated water into the watersheds…………………………………………………………. more https://ricochet.media/indigenous/the-anishinaabe-community-fighting-nuclear-waste-dumping-one-step-at-a-time/
Bloc Québécois backs First Nation fighting nuclear waste site.
By Natasha Bulowski , Ottawa Insider, September 10th 2024
Bloc Québécois leader Yves-François Blanchet is throwing his weight behind a First Nation fighting a nuclear waste disposal site near the Ottawa River.
Flanked by three BQ MPs — Sébastien Lemire, Mario Simard and Monique Pauzé — Blanchet reaffirmed the BQ’s support for Kebaowek First Nation’s sustained opposition to the radioactive waste disposal site, located about 190 kilometres northwest of Ottawa at Chalk River Laboratories.
Blanchet called on the federal government to immediately suspend the project. …………………………………………………………………………………..more https://www.nationalobserver.com/2024/09/10/news/bloc-quebecois-radioactive-waste-facility
In New Mexico, a Walk Commemorates the Nuclear Disaster Few Outside the Navajo Nation Remember
the Navajo Birth Cohort Study, which since 2010 has been looking at the relationship between uranium exposures, birth outcomes and child development on the Navajo Nation. Among the findings is that mothers were deficient in key nutrients for babies’ developing nervous systems.
The Church Rock spill released more radioactive material than the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island four months earlier. Last week’s walk highlights the continuing cleanup and the ongoing hazards uranium mining poses to tribal lands.
Inside Climate News, By Noel Lyn Smith, July 20, 2024
RED WATER POND ROAD, New Mexico—As Tony Hood walked along New Mexico Highway 566 last Saturday, he thought about where he was 45 years earlier, when an earthen dam broke at the site of a uranium mill operated by the United Nuclear Corp., releasing 94 million gallons of radioactive water and 1,100 tons of uranium waste across portions of New Mexico, Arizona and the Navajo Nation.
Hood was working inside a nearby underground mine owned by the Kerr-McGee Corp. when the dam broke on July 16, 1979. He didn’t learn about the spill until after returning to the surface.
As he walked in this month’s event commemorating the spill, he pointed to the spot where the dam was located.
“I guess they observed there was some cracks in the earthen dam but they didn’t do nothing about it,” he said. “Finally, the dam collapsed, breached.”
The dam failure at the processing mill north of Church Rock, New Mexico, released radioactive liquid that eventually flowed into the Rio Puerco and through areas on the Navajo Nation, nearby Gallup, New Mexico, and, finally, Arizona. Now known as the Church Rock spill, the accident released the most radioactive material in U.S. history—more than the notorious partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station four months earlier—yet remains largely unknown to the American public.
The nonprofit Red Water Pond Road Community Association tries to remedy that lack of awareness by organizing the annual walk by the site of the spill, during which current and former area residents, supporters and advocates remember what happened that day. They also talk about the aftermath, including what federal and tribal agencies have done and need to do to clean up the communities affected by the accident.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. A report in May 2014 by the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that “Navajo people continue to live with the environmental and health effects from mining operations: more than 500 abandoned mines are located across the reservation, some close to homes and communities, and an unknown number of homes and drinking water sources contain radioactive elements.”
Educational materials distributed by the Red Water Pond Road Community Association mention some health studies that residents participated in. One is the Navajo Birth Cohort Study, which since 2010 has been looking at the relationship between uranium exposures, birth outcomes and child development on the Navajo Nation. Among the findings is that mothers were deficient in key nutrients for babies’ developing nervous systems. The association notes that a comprehensive study still needs to be done about the effects of uranium on Navajo health.
“We sacrificed our lives, our bodies to mine that ore,” Hood said…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Link: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20072024/new-mexico-walk-commemorates-navajo-nation-nuclear-disaster/
Tribes and Environmentalists Press Arizona and Federal Officials to Stop Uranium Mining Near the Grand Canyon
Activists hope to shut down an existing mine within a new national monument and to prevent the transportation of uranium on state and federal roads across Navajo Nation lands.
Inside Climate News, By Noel Lyn Smith, July 17, 2024
PHOENIX—Members of environmental groups stood together in the lobby of the Arizona State Capitol Executive Tower late last month to deliver a petition to Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs, requesting that she stop uranium mining activities near the Grand Canyon National Park.
The Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, National Parks Conservation Association, Wild Arizona, Chispa Arizona and Haul No!, a group formed to fight the mining and transport of uranium, delivered a petition with more than 17,500 signatures to the governor.
They are seeking closure of the Pinyon Plain Mine, located less than 10 miles from the Grand Canyon. It is inside the Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni—Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument, which President Joe Biden established in August 2023. The removal of uranium ore from the mine started in late December.
Although the designation prohibits new mining claims and development, it allows prior claims with valid existing rights like Pinyon Plain to continue their operations. Energy Fuels Resources owns the mine, which is approximately 17 acres, and operates it on land managed by the U.S. Forest Service.
“This mine threatens to pollute the groundwater that feeds the seeps and springs in Grand Canyon, supporting plants, animals and people,” the petition states.
People can develop respiratory disease and toxicity in the kidneys due to uranium exposure, according to the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. There are more than 500 abandoned uranium mines on the Navajo Nation, and the tribe continues to confront the ramifications of mining activities on tribal members and the environment. This includes advocating for federal money to clean up abandoned mines and compensation for former mine workers.
No one from Hobbs’ office met the group or accepted the written requests in person. Instead, the activists left the petition, the groups’ latest action attempting to get the Democratic governor’s attention, with the executive receptionist on the first floor. In January, the groups sent a letter to Hobbs urging her to revisit permits issued for Pinyon Plain Mine and seeking her help closing it. They said she has not responded to the letter.
A spokesperson with the governor’s office confirmed on July 11 that the petition was received…………………………………………………………………………..
Vania Guevara is the advocacy and political director with Chispa Arizona, a program under the League of Conservation Voters that is dedicated to increasing Latinx voices in policies that address climate change and the environment. Guevara said it is urgent for Hobbs to address uranium mining because it threatens the health and safety of Indigenous communities.
A dozen tribes have ancestral, ceremonial and traditional connections to the region, including the Havasupai Tribe, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, Las Vegas Paiute Tribe, Moapa Band of Paiutes, Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah, Navajo Nation, San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe, Yavapai-Apache Nation, Pueblo of Zuni and the Colorado River Indian Tribes…………………………………. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/17072024/arizona-activists-press-officials-to-stop-uranium-mining-near-grand-canyon/
Tensions with First Nations threaten to delay nuclear waste facility
MATTHEW MCCLEARN, 16 June 24 https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-tensions-with-first-nations-threaten-to-delay-nuclear-waste-facility/#:~:text=Prof.%20Leiss%20said%20even%20if,this%20issue%2C%E2%80%9D%20he%20said.
The eight-reactor Bruce Nuclear Generating Station, on the eastern shore of Lake Huron, ranks among the world’s largest nuclear power plants. With four more in the early planning stages, it might become larger still. But for the Saugeen Ojibway Nation (SON), behind its engineering grandeur lies a painful history – which it has described as one “of exclusion.”
Its people were not consulted before the plant’s construction during the 1970s and 80s, which resulted in quantities of radioactive waste stored within what they regard as their traditional territory. Nor did they see many of the economic benefits that flowed to neighbours.
These unresolved tensions threaten to derail – or at least significantly delay – efforts to find a permanent solution for Canada’s nuclear waste, which dates back to the 1970s. As of June, 2023, Canada had accumulated approximately 3.3 million used fuel bundles that were stored temporarily at operating or retired nuclear power plants in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick. But there’s nowhere to send them for permanent disposal – a potential stumbling block as the nuclear industry seeks public acceptance for a proposed major expansion.
The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), an industry-controlled organization to which the federal government delegated responsibility for nuclear waste management, wants to select a site this year for a proposed, $26-billion underground nuclear waste disposal facility, known as a deep geological repository. The two remaining candidates are the Municipality of South Bruce (about 45 kilometres southeast of Bruce station, and also within SON’s traditional territory) and a site more than 40 kilometres from Ignace, a town of 1,200 northwest of Thunder Bay.
One of the NWMO’s guiding principles is that the repository’s host “must be informed and willing to accept the project.” Ignace’s council will decide that through a resolution; it has agreed to notify the NWMO of its decision by July 30. (It hired a consultant, With Chela Inc., to engage with residents and maintains its decision will be based on public input.) In South Bruce, citizens will vote in a by-election in late October. Both signed hosting agreements with the NWMO this year, under which South Bruce would receive $418-million over nearly a century and a half; Ignace would get $170-million.
Yet all that might well prove a sideshow. The NWMO also seeks consent from Indigenous peoples: Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation, in the case of Ignace. SON, which is composed of the Chippewas of Nawash First Nation and Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation, will decide regarding the South Bruce site. NWMO spokesperson Fred Kuntz said the organization is negotiating hosting agreements with both First Nations.
Success is far from assured.
SON’s grievances with the nuclear industry date back to the 1960s, when Ontario Hydro (the predecessor of Ontario Power Generation) began constructing Canada’s first commercial nuclear power plant. For SON, the commissioning of the Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station marked the beginning of “the nuclear industrialization” of its territory. Douglas Point was followed by the much-larger Bruce station, built immediately next door.
SON ruefully watched its neighbours benefit as tax revenues rolled into local municipalities, while its members were largely shut out. In 2013 SON secured an undertaking from Ontario Power Generation that the utility wouldn’t establish an intermediate-level waste repository (proposed for construction at Bruce station) on its territory without its consent.
That undertaking had far-reaching consequences. It led to a 2020 plebiscite in which SON’s membership overwhelmingly rejected that repository. And it set an important precedent: In 2016, the NWMO granted SON the same ability to veto the South Bruce repository. SON plans to hold a referendum of its members, once it has received all the information it seeks from the NWMO.
“I’d say we’re at least halfway halfway home to having our questions satisfied,” said Gregory Nadjiwon, chief of the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation, one of SON’s two member nations.
But reaching an agreement this year – or at all – could prove challenging. The NWMO has accepted responsibility for disposing of all Canadian spent fuel, whether from the Point Lepreau station in New Brunswick, or from long-defunct research reactors at Chalk River, or even wastes from reactors yet to be constructed. SON’s leadership, though, is focused on the wastes in its own territory.
“If the [repository] is going to be in the SON territory, why should we be accepting waste that comes from Pickering, Darlington, Chalk River or Point Lepreau?” Chief Nadjiwon said.
“I mean, that’s ludicrous.”
As part of any agreement with NWMO, SON’s leadership seeks resolution to its long-standing concerns, such as the fact that wastes have been stored in its territory for decades without compensation.
“When I go in my truck to a garage in Toronto, I’m charged a cost” to park it, he said. “It’s no different than when you park waste in an Indigenous territory or homeland. We expect an agreement for the cost of doing business.”
William Leiss, an emeritus professor at Queen’s University’s School of Policy Studies, worked as a paid consultant for the NWMO between 2002 and 2011. He wrote a book, Deep Disposal, about the site selection process; the book is scheduled for publication in September. Prof. Leiss said SON’s opposition is so firm that it’s hard to fathom why South Bruce is still in the running.
“Its negatives are so pronounced that one wonders if it is being kept alive solely as a negotiating card so that Ignace does not regard itself as the only viable option,” he wrote.
“It has all the markings of an elaborate charade.”
But Prof. Leiss said the Ignace site is a long shot, too.
The Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation has roughly 1,000 members, 200 of which live on a reserve 20 kilometres from the Ignace area site. Its chief, Clayton Wetelainen, said the community has been negotiating a hosting agreement with the NWMO for roughly eight months.
The community has had far less interaction with the nuclear industry than SON has, so its historical baggage is perhaps lighter. Whereas the Ignace and South Bruce agreements would prevent future councils from backing out of the project, Wabigoon Lake’s leadership does not regard the agreement it’s negotiating as irrevocable – in part because there’s insufficient information available on many aspects of the project.
“The current vote that we’re talking about is just to go down to one site,” Chief Wetelainen said.
“This has to go through regulatory approvals, and our own approval, when we get more information about the detailed site.”
Some, he added, have misconstrued the vote as final and binding, “but that’s not the case.”
Prof. Leiss said even if Wabigoon Lake voted in favour of the project, other First Nations throughout the region might launch lawsuits to block the project. “There’s intense fighting among the First Nations in the Treaty 3 area over this issue,” he said.
Chief Wetelainen said his goal is to set a date in the fall for his 1,000 members to vote. Some community members began informing themselves about the project a decade ago, but others are only now beginning to ask the same questions. Getting all members up to speed is proving a challenge, he said – and as with SON, his community does not regard itself as bound by the NWMO’s timetable.
This position is admired by some of the repository’s non-Indigenous opponents. Bill Noll is vice-president of Protect Our Waterways, an opposition group in South Bruce. He said municipal officials have followed the NWMO’s timeline “blindly,” whereas SON is on its own schedule.
“They have a veto capability for the project, which is really an important dimension,” Mr. Noll said.
Prof. Leiss said Ontario is the only logical province for the repository – that’s where the bulk of Canada’s nuclear waste is already stored temporarily. But it’s home to 133 First Nations, whose often-overlapping traditional territories span nearly the entire province. It’s “entirely possible” that no First Nation will agree to accept a repository, he said.
But there’s another wrinkle: The NWMO’s willingness principle is not a legal requirement. OPG’s earlier proposed repository received regulatory approval of its environmental assessment without one. The NWMO’s promise to First Nations, he said, is “not worth the paper it’s written on.”
Prof. Leiss said the NWMO from the outset should have focused on First Nations, which he regards as the repository’s true hosts.
He wrote: “A sardonic take on this siting strategy might go something like this: entice a municipality with a dream of economic riches beyond its wildest imaginings, give it a phone book and tell it to place some calls to the nearest Indigenous communities, and then hope for the best.”
Chief Akagi requests public hearing to review any new governance arrangement for the Point Lepreau nuclear reactor on Peskotomuhkati homeland
Canada adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Article 29 of UNDRIP requires states to take effective measures to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous materials takes place in the lands or territories of Indigenous peoples without their free, prior, and informed consent. The CNSC’s decision to grant NB Power a 10-year license renewal does not reflect this commitment.
by Abby Bartlett, June 10, 2024 homeland https://nbmediacoop.org/2024/06/10/chief-akagi-requests-public-hearing-to-review-any-new-governance-arrangement-for-the-point-lepreau-nuclear-reactor-on-peskotomuhkati-homeland/
On May 15, New Brunswick’s Energy Development Minister Mike Holland tabled the first reading of a bill to change the Electricity Act. The change would allow NB Power to enter a partnership with Ontario Power Generation (OPG).
In a letter to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) on May 29, Peskotomuhkati Chief Hugh Akagi outlined his initial concerns with the proposed agreement between NB Power and OPG, which reportedly includes a partial ownership stake in the Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station.
The letter is from the Passamoquoddy Recognition Group (PRGI) which represents the Peskotomuhkati Nation in Canada and the interests of rightsholders and the Peskotomuhkati ecosystem, including the Point Lepreau Nuclear Station and areas surrounding up to 90 km away.
Any new owners of the Lepreau CANDU nuclear reactor will have rights and responsibilities that PRGI wants clarified. In May 2022, Chief Akagi spoke at a public hearing held by the CNSC in Saint John to discuss NB Power’s request for a 25-year renewal of the license to operate the Point Lepreau nuclear reactor.
At the hearing, PRGI asked the CNSC to reduce the license to three years, stating that the average length of licensing is only 2.44 years. In the end, the CNSC granted a 10-year licence. Given that PRGI has already felt the impact of the proposed change in licence holders, they are rightfully concerned about the possible repercussions that will come from the new proposed changes.
In December 2023, New Brunswick published its new energy strategy, outlining plans to declare that the Point Lepreau reactor will undergo licence “renewals every 10 years.” This statement assumes that the 10-year license length will be the conclusion of future discussions that have not happened yet.
Back in June 2022, Chief Akagi stated that a 10-year license renewal meant that Canada was not meeting its own legal and related obligations to the Nation. “The new licence gives NB Power the ability to create and store 10 more years of fresh and dangerous high-level waste on our territory. This is not acceptable,” Chief Akagi said at the time.
Canada adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Article 29 of UNDRIP requires states to take effective measures to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous materials takes place in the lands or territories of Indigenous peoples without their free, prior, and informed consent. The CNSC’s decision to grant NB Power a 10-year license renewal does not reflect this commitment.
Regarding any new governance arrangement for the Point Lepreau reactor, PRGI has many questions outlined in its letter to the CNSC.
PRGI wonders how a new joint ownership entity will fulfill its Indigenous consultation obligations. Will PRGI have any say about these arrangements? How will a joint ownership arrangement for the existing CANDU reactor impact any new reactors on the Point Lepreau site? What will OPG’s responsibilities be for the existing and any further nuclear waste produced by the Point Lepreau plant under a co-ownership arrangement?
NB Power is fraught with 3.6 billion dollars of nuclear debt due to the original building cost of the Lepreau nuclear generating station, the later refurbishment of the reactor, and the poor performance over the course of its operation.
This potential agreement would mean shedding the Lepreau nuclear reactor off to a new entity, which would be co-owned with OPG and NB Power in an agreement that could force New Brunswick customers to pay for expensive nuclear power for decades.
The letter by Chief Akagi ends with two requests. First is the need for the CNSC to commit to holding in-person hearings for the future request to change ownership of the Lepreau nuclear reactor to ensure that the Peskotomuhkati Nation can intervene in its traditional way rather than only through written intervention.
The second request asks the CNSC to remind the New Brunswick Government that a future 10-year license for the Lepreau reactor is not up to the provincial government. Instead, it will be a matter of review and decision made by the CNSC, which will involve public intervenors, including PRGI.
As Chief Akagi outlines, NB Power is required to make an application to the CNSC to authorize the transfer of licence, and under section 40 of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, they are also required to hold a hearing. The Peskotomuhkati Nation does not want this proposed change to become another injustice that they must bear. The CNSC needs to ensure that Peskotomuhkati people’s voices are heard, understood, and respected in the process.
Abby Bartlett is a research assistant on the CEDAR project at St. Thomas University.
Moving nuclear waste through traditional territories could face opposition, Ontario First Nation says
‘Think about how many treaty territories that waste would have to go through,’ chief says
Colin Butler · CBC News · May 27, 2024
A First Nation in southwestern Ontario says even if the community votes yes on a proposed $26 billion dump for nuclear waste within their traditional territory, it would likely be opposed by other First Nations, through whose territories the more than 5.5 million spent fuel rods would have to pass.
Canada’s nuclear industry has been on a decades-long quest to find a permanent home for tens of thousands of tonnes of highly radioactive waste. The search has narrowed to two Ontario communities — Ignace, northwest of Thunder Bay, and the Municipality of South Bruce, north of London.
Both will vote later this year on whether to build a deep geologic repository, a kind of nuclear crypt, where more than 50,000 tonnes of waste in copper casks will be lowered more than 500 metres underground to be kept for all time, behind layers of clay, concrete and the ancient bedrock itself.
But so will their Indigenous neighbours, whose traditional territories the towns are within, which gives each respective First Nation a veto.
In the case of Saugeen Ojibway Nation in particular, it means the community again finds itself as the future arbiter of a potential nuclear waste site on their traditional lands for the second time in a few years.
In early 2020, its members voted overwhelmingly against the construction of a deep geologic repository outside of Kincardine, that was proposed by Ontario Power Generation.
This time around, Chief Greg Nadjiwon of the neighbouring Chippewas of the Nawash, says the proposal by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), a non-profit industry group, for a similar facility has a better chance, but is still a tough sell…………………………………………………………………………………… https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/nuclear-waste-ontario-south-bruce-saugeen-nation-1.7213878
Indigenous opposition to nuclear waste being transported through their territory
Concerns growing surrounding nuclear waste management
Anishinabek, The voice of the Anishinabek nation. May 22, 2024, By Rick Garrick
FORT WILLIAM — Fort William’s Elysia Lone Elk is raising concerns about the transportation of nuclear materials through Northern Ontario if the proposed nuclear waste site near Ignace in Treaty #3 territory gets the go-ahead.
The Trans-Canada Hwy. was closed for about 20 hours in 2001 after a head-on collision between two transport trucks, one of which was transporting two canisters of radioactive material — iridium — about 25 kilometres east of Dryden, 105 kilometres west of Ignace. The collision resulted in “widespread destruction” and the deaths of four people, two from each vehicle, according to a news report. Officials from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission eventually arrived on site, found there was no leakage, and removed the canisters to a safe location.
“Water is life, it’s our most sacred resource,” Lone Elk says. “We need that to survive, animals need that to survive, and I don’t think we should be drilling underground and playing with aquifers with a very toxic harmful material that has a half-life beyond my conception of time.”
The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) has been following a process to select a site for Canada’s plan to safely manage used nuclear fuel long-term since 2010, and has since narrowed down the potential sites to two areas for Canada’s deep geological repository, the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation-Ignace area in northwestern Ontario, and the Saugeen Ojibway Nation-South Bruce area in southwestern Ontario. If the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation-Ignace area is selected as the site, nuclear materials would have to be transported across Northern Ontario to the site.
“If it’s so safe, then why are you even transporting it, just bury it where it is? We know how dangerous those highways can be,” Lone Elk says. “The fact that no one on the [potential transportation] corridor gets a say is a democratic problem, very frustrating.”
Lone Elk adds that the nuclear material would be transported across Northern Ontario for the operating life of the proposed deep geological repository. The NWMO states on their website that based on current projections of Canada’s inventory of used nuclear fuel, transportation is anticipated to take about 40 years to complete. The NWMO adds that they are exploring road and/or rail options for transporting used nuclear fuel to the deep geological repository.
“The (Fort William) Band Council has passed two resolutions, one focusing on the proximity principle and then the other one specifically outright stating we do not support nuclear fuel being transported through our traditional territory,” Lone Elk says. “We’re trusting their scientists, we’re trusting industry scientists, we’re trusting industry factors; so when does the First Nation get to participate with Indigenous knowledge?”
Fort William Chief Michele Solomon says Fort William passed two resolutions in the last four years opposing nuclear waste being brought into Fort William territory.
“I think that it’s fair to say we stand with other First Nations in Robinson Superior Treaty territory to say that there’s nothing that gives us comfort that there would be any safety with this being transported through our communities,” Solomon says. “We see the increase in accidents on the highways going through our homelands so we’re strongly opposed to it.”
Solomon adds that their community has not been consulted on this issue.
Based on how the community has responded to other possible threats to our homelands, the people have been strongly opposed to other things that have been proposed for our territory,” Solomon says. “If the government wants to proceed with this, then they need to consult with the rights holders of this territory. So if it needs to pass through Robinson Superior territory, you need to consult with all of those communities.”
Solomon says it is not enough for the Nuclear Waste Management Organization to say that it is safe.
“I think there should be independent research done and that has not happened as far as I know,” Solomon says, noting that unhealthy things have been brought into her community’s airspace and waterways before. “So we are strongly opposed.”
The Assembly of First Nations is holding four Regional Dialogue Sessions: A Dialogue on the Transportation and Storage of Used Nuclear Fuel at locations across the country, including on May 22 at the Delta Hotels by Marriott in Thunder Bay.
--
Russian uranium ban reopens threat of uranium mining escalation in US
Executives from Uranium Energy, Terrapower, Centrus and Energy Fuels couldn’t contain their excitement. Nor can they wait to begin mining, milling, and enriching uranium again in the US, to the detriment most especially of Native American tribes living on the land already permanently scarred and poisoned by previous such operations and who are still waiting for adequate or any cleanup and reparations.
The Navajo Nation, who have banned uranium mining on their territory, was home to more than 500 uranium mines at peak operations, all of which are now abandoned but not cleaned up. (There are more than 4,000 abandoned uranium mine sites across the US.) Tribal members understand all too well what uranium mining can do to the health and wellbeing of a community.
Beyond Nuclear, By Linda Pentz Gunter, 24 May 24
When Russia first invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022, no one knew how long the fighting would continue and what the outcome might be. Kyiv was expected to fall immediately. It didn’t. More than two years on, the war continues and the rumblings from Russia about nuclear weapons use grow frighteningly louder.
The rush by the United States and its NATO allies at the time of the invasion to help defend — and to some extent arm — Ukraine included a quick decision to sanction Russian fossil fuel imports. On March 8, 2022, just 12 days after the invasion, US president, Joe Biden, signed an Executive Order banning the import of Russian oil, liquefied natural gas, and coal to the United States. Russian uranium was not included.
At the time of the 2022 ban on Russian fossil fuels, many of us in the anti-nuclear movement were agitating for a Russian uranium ban as well. At least 12% of US uranium imports comes from Russia to fuel domestic US reactors. That number rises to close to 50% if you also factor in uranium sourced from Russian satellites Kazakhstan (25%) and Uzbekistan (11%). (Canada is the other major single-source supplier of uranium to the US at 27%.)
On May 13, 2024, President Biden finally signed into law a bipartisan bill — the Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act — banning imports of Russian low-enriched uranium. According to the bill, the ban affects: “Unirradiated low-enriched uranium that is produced in the Russian Federation or by a Russian entity” (read Rosatom operating outside Russia).
When we were pushing for a Russian uranium boycott at the start of the war, it was in the context of highlighting the detriment of nuclear power and fed into our agenda to permanently end the use of this dangerous and discriminatory technology. We asked then why the nuclear sector was getting a pass. Now we have the answer. The bill is a poisoned pill, almost literally.
The bill’s enactment “releases $2.72 billion in appropriated funds to the Department of Energy to invest in domestic uranium enrichment further advancing a secure and resilient global nuclear energy fuel supply consistent with our international obligations,” said the US State Department.
This is all part of the absurd agenda to triple global nuclear capacity by 2050 (too late) and, said the State Department, “to establish a secure nuclear fuel supply chain, independent of adversarial influence, for decades to come.” It will do nothing of the kind.
While the new law may claim to end US dependency on Russian uranium, it does not end American addiction to a fatal energy source that victimizes the communities least resourced to fight back. Furthermore, it will make America’s path to a renewable energy economy all the harder, redirecting funds and precious time toward the most expensive and slowest way to address the climate crisis (nuclear) instead of faster, cheaper renewables.
There are no prizes for guessing who was cheering the loudest as Biden wielded his pen last week.
Executives from Uranium Energy, Terrapower, Centrus and Energy Fuels couldn’t contain their excitement. Nor can they wait to begin mining, milling, and enriching uranium again in the US, to the detriment most especially of Native American tribes living on the land already permanently scarred and poisoned by previous such operations and who are still waiting for adequate or any cleanup and reparations.
One of those places, the Grand Canyon, is already under threat from the Pinyon Plain uranium mine, a project of Canadian-owned Energy Fuels and which started operations in January 2024, against the strong opposition of the Havasupai tribe who live there.
“We have been against uranium mining for decades because of the known risks to land and air, water and people,” said Carletta Tilousi, a leader of the Havasupai tribe who is fighting to cancel the uranium operations at Pinyon Plain, which is located near Red Butte, a sacred site to the Havsupai people.
“Uranium mining in the southwest has scarred and left a horrifying legacy of death in our communities. Thousands of abandoned uranium mines on federal and tribal lands have not been cleaned up,” she said.
“Uranium will continue to poison the Grand Canyon including the aquifers that feed into the Colorado River,” added Tilousi. “Contaminants from the uranium mine are likely to make their way to the deep aquifers that feed Havasu Springs. The mine closure is the only way to avoid this risk.”
The Navajo Nation, who have banned uranium mining on their territory, was home to more than 500 uranium mines at peak operations, all of which are now abandoned but not cleaned up. (There are more than 4,000 abandoned uranium mine sites across the US.) Tribal members understand all too well what uranium mining can do to the health and wellbeing of a community.
“This decision by Biden is terrible news,” said former uranium mine worker, Larry King of the Navajo Nation, a member of Eastern Navajo Diné Against Uranium Mining that has advocated mine cleanup for decades. Added King: “They’ve never returned an aquifer to pre-mining stages,” after extracting uranium through in-situ leach mining, the predominant technique currently used. “The companies got what they want out of Navajo and moved on.”
Despite the ban, the Navajo Nation had already been under a renewed threat of resumed uranium mining when Uranium Resources tried to open a new in situ leach mine at Church Rock, a plan that was defeated by tribal opposition. But Toronto-based Laramide Resources has since bought out Uranium Resources and wants to mine uranium there because the land is surrounded by — but not within — the boundaries of the Navajo reservation.
King’s home lies within view of Laramide’s plans. “The environmental impact statement says there are certain dwellings within the diameter of the project and those people will have to move,” King said. “I’m not moving. This is where I’m from. I’m not moving a foot.”
After Biden signed the Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act, the Washington Post ran a disgracefully slanted article, in which not a single Native American voice was heard. Reporter Maxine Joselow quoted executives from four nuclear corporations and two politicians, all of whom favored the legislation. She made only a glancing reference to mine opponents as “others” and “still others” after prefacing their anonymous mention with “Though some environmentalists support nuclear power…”
But she was more than happy to repeat the utter nonsense spewed by Energy Fuels senior vice president, Curtis Moore, who said the company’s Grand Canyon mine would have “zero” risk to water supplies there and that “Uranium is absolutely essential to the fight against climate change.”
Americans, and especially Native Americans, will pay the price for this bill which, instead of banning uranium imports and transitioning away from nuclear power, seeks instead to stimulate exponential domestic growth of this dirty industry………………………………………………….. more https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/05/19/terrible-news/
Indigenous Senator warns new laws will turn Australia into “the world’s nuclear waste dump”
Giovanni Torre – May 13, 2024, https://nit.com.au/13-05-2024/11377/lidia-thorpe-warns-new-laws-will-turn-australia-into-the-worlds-nuclear-waste-dump?mc_cid=a41a81cd8c&mc_eid=261607298d
Senator Lidia Thorpe has warned new legislation to regulate nuclear safety of activities relating to AUKUS submarines has left Australia open to becoming “the world’s nuclear waste dump”.
Under the AUKUS deal, the federal government agreed to manage nuclear waste from Australian submarines, but under legislation to be introduced in June, Australia could be set to take nuclear waste from UK and US submarines also, Senator Thorpe warned.
The Gunnai, Gunditjmara and Djab Wurrung independent senator for Victoria called on the government to urgently amend the bill to prohibit high-level nuclear waste from being stored in Australia, a call she said is backed by experts in the field and addresses one of the major concerns raised during the inquiry into the bill.
“This legislation should be setting off alarm bells, it could mean that Australia becomes the world’s nuclear waste dump,” Senator Thorpe said on Monday.
“The government claims it has no intention to take AUKUS nuclear waste beyond that of Australian submarines, so they should have no reason not to close this loophole.
“Unless they amend this bill, how can we know they’re being honest? They also need to stop future governments from deciding otherwise. We can’t risk our future generations with this.”
In March, Senator Thorpe questioned Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong about the long-term cost from storage of nuclear waste, and whether Australia would take on foreign nuclear waste under the AUKUS deal. The minister responded that this cost is not included in the current $368 billion estimated for AUKUS, and she could not confirm that foreign waste would not be stored in Australia.
Senator Thorpe noted that the US Environmental Protection Agency warns high-level nuclear waste remains dangerous for at least 10,000 years; managing the risk posed by the decommissioned fuel rods from the AUKUS submarines would require storage and management that is future-proof, something that has proven challenging even in countries with advanced nuclear industries.
She also pointed out on Monday that the bill has also been criticised for lack of transparency and accountability; and allows the Minister of Defense to bypass public consultation and override federal and state laws to determine sites for the construction and operation of nuclear submarines, and the disposal of submarine nuclear waste.
Senator Thorpe said there are serious concerns about a lack of community consultation and the risk of violating First Peoples right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent.
Historically, governments have tried to push the storage of radioactive waste on remote First Nations communities, with successful campaigns in Coober Pedy, Woomera, Muckaty, Yappala in the Flinders Ranges and Kimba fighting off these attempts.
“We’ve seen how far the major parties will go to ingratiate themselves with the US. Labor must amend this bill to prove they’re putting the interests of our country first,” Senator Thorpe said.
“And they need to change the powers that allow the Minister and the Department to choose any place they like for nuclear waste facilities with no oversight or community consultation.
“That’s complete overreach and will undermine First Peoples rights for Free, Prior and Informed Consent under the United Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”
The senator said “time and again” governments have attempted to turn remote communities into nuclear waste dumps, with the risks from nuclear waste always being put on First Peoples.
“I’m concerned that this time it will be no different,” she said.
“The Bill allows the government to contract out liability for nuclear safety compliance, includes no emergency preparedness or response mechanisms, no consideration of nuclear safety guidelines from the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency and leaves many other questions on nuclear safety unanswered.”
“This Bill fails to set out a nuclear safety framework for the AUKUS submarines and instead focuses on defence objectives, while sidestepping safety, transparency and accountability. It’s a negligent and reckless bill that should not pass the Senate.”
Russian uranium ban reopens threat of uranium mining escalation in US
Executives from Uranium Energy, Terrapower, Centrus and Energy Fuels couldn’t contain their excitement. Nor can they wait to begin mining, milling, and enriching uranium again in the US, to the detriment most especially of Native American tribes living on the land already permanently scarred and poisoned by previous such operations and who are still waiting for adequate or any cleanup and reparations.
Beyond Nuclear, By Linda Pentz Gunter, 19 May 24
When Russia first invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022, no one knew how long the fighting would continue and what the outcome might be. Kyiv was expected to fall immediately. It didn’t. More than two years on, the war continues and the rumblings from Russia about nuclear weapons use grow frighteningly louder.
The rush by the United States and its NATO allies at the time of the invasion to help defend — and to some extent arm — Ukraine included a quick decision to sanction Russian fossil fuel imports. On March 8, 2022, just 12 days after the invasion, US president, Joe Biden, signed an Executive Order banning the import of Russian oil, liquefied natural gas, and coal to the United States. Russian uranium was not included.
At the time of the 2022 ban on Russian fossil fuels, many of us in the anti-nuclear movement were agitating for a Russian uranium ban as well. At least 12% of US uranium imports comes from Russia to fuel domestic US reactors. That number rises to close to 50% if you also factor in uranium sourced from Russian satellites Kazakhstan (25%) and Uzbekistan (11%). (Canada is the other major single-source supplier of uranium to the US at 27%.)
On May 13, 2024, President Biden finally signed into law a bipartisan bill — the Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act — banning imports of Russian low-enriched uranium. According to the bill, the ban affects: “Unirradiated low-enriched uranium that is produced in the Russian Federation or by a Russian entity” (read Rosatom operating outside Russia).
When we were pushing for a Russian uranium boycott at the start of the war, it was in the context of highlighting the detriment of nuclear power and fed into our agenda to permanently end the use of this dangerous and discriminatory technology. We asked then why the nuclear sector was getting a pass. Now we have the answer. The bill is a poisoned pill, almost literally.
The bill’s enactment “releases $2.72 billion in appropriated funds to the Department of Energy to invest in domestic uranium enrichment further advancing a secure and resilient global nuclear energy fuel supply consistent with our international obligations,” said the US State Department.
This is all part of the absurd agenda to triple global nuclear capacity by 2050 (too late) and, said the State Department, “to establish a secure nuclear fuel supply chain, independent of adversarial influence, for decades to come.” It will do nothing of the kind.
While the new law may claim to end US dependency on Russian uranium, it does not end American addiction to a fatal energy source that victimizes the communities least resourced to fight back. Furthermore, it will make America’s path to a renewable energy economy all the harder, redirecting funds and precious time toward the most expensive and slowest way to address the climate crisis (nuclear) instead of faster, cheaper renewables.
There are no prizes for guessing who was cheering the loudest as Biden wielded his pen last week.
Executives from Uranium Energy, Terrapower, Centrus and Energy Fuels couldn’t contain their excitement. Nor can they wait to begin mining, milling, and enriching uranium again in the US, to the detriment most especially of Native American tribes living on the land already permanently scarred and poisoned by previous such operations and who are still waiting for adequate or any cleanup and reparations.
One of those places, the Grand Canyon, is already under threat from the Pinyon Plain uranium mine, a project of Canadian-owned Energy Fuels and which started operations in January 2024, against the strong opposition of the Havasupai tribe who live there.
“We have been against uranium mining for decades because of the known risks to land and air, water and people,” said Carletta Tilousi, a leader of the Havasupai tribe who is fighting to cancel the uranium operations at Pinyon Plain, which is located near Red Butte, a sacred site to the Havsupai people.
“Uranium mining in the southwest has scarred and left a horrifying legacy of death in our communities. Thousands of abandoned uranium mines on federal and tribal lands have not been cleaned up,” she said.
“Uranium will continue to poison the Grand Canyon including the aquifers that feed into the Colorado River,” added Tilousi. “Contaminants from the uranium mine are likely to make their way to the deep aquifers that feed Havasu Springs. The mine closure is the only way to avoid this risk.”
The Navajo Nation, who have banned uranium mining on their territory, was home to more than 500 uranium mines at peak operations, all of which are now abandoned but not cleaned up. (There are more than 4,000 abandoned uranium mine sites across the US.) Tribal members understand all too well what uranium mining can do to the health and wellbeing of a community.
“This decision by Biden is terrible news,” said former uranium mine worker, Larry King of the Navajo Nation, a member of Eastern Navajo Diné Against Uranium Mining that has advocated mine cleanup for decades. Added King: “They’ve never returned an aquifer to pre-mining stages,” after extracting uranium through in-situ leach mining, the predominant technique currently used. “The companies got what they want out of Navajo and moved on.”
Despite the ban, the Navajo Nation had already been under a renewed threat of resumed uranium mining when Uranium Resources tried to open a new in situ leach mine at Church Rock, a plan that was defeated by tribal opposition. But Toronto-based Laramide Resources has since bought out Uranium Resources and wants to mine uranium there because the land is surrounded by — but not within — the boundaries of the Navajo reservation.
King’s home lies within view of Laramide’s plans. “The environmental impact statement says there are certain dwellings within the diameter of the project and those people will have to move,” King said. “I’m not moving. This is where I’m from. I’m not moving a foot.”
After Biden signed the Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act, the Washington Post ran a disgracefully slanted article, in which not a single Native American voice was heard. Reporter Maxine Joselow quoted executives from four nuclear corporations and two politicians, all of whom favored the legislation. She made only a glancing reference to mine opponents as “others” and “still others” after prefacing their anonymous mention with “Though some environmentalists support nuclear power…”
But she was more than happy to repeat the utter nonsense spewed by Energy Fuels senior vice president, Curtis Moore, who said the company’s Grand Canyon mine would have “zero” risk to water supplies there and that “Uranium is absolutely essential to the fight against climate change.”
Americans, and especially Native Americans, will pay the price for this bill which, instead of banning uranium imports and transitioning away from nuclear power, seeks instead to stimulate exponential domestic growth of this dirty industry………………………………………………………..
it’s unclear how deeply the boycott will actually harm Russia and when. As bne IntelliNews clarified in a January 19, 2024 article: “even though Kazakhstan is the world’s biggest player in uranium supply, much of its milled uranium travels through Russian conversion plants before it is exported to global markets.” Russia has “control of over 26% of Kazakh uranium deposits and holds rights to an additional 22% of annual production.”
However, the Russia uranium ban doesn’t specifically include Uzbekistan or Kazakhstan and the “Russian entity” wording in the bill leaves the situation vague.
Kazakhstan seems to have no doubt about the opportunity presented by the Russia ban and is eager to fill the void. “This bill represents a significant opportunity for Kazakhstan, the world’s largest producer of uranium, which could potentially step into the breach and provide the mineral necessary to meet the U.S.’ nuclear energy needs,” reported The Times of Central Asia in January after the bill had passed the US House last December.
Furthermore, there is a pretty big waiver included in the bill which could keep the door wide open to Russian uranium. It states that imports can continue if “no alternative viable source of low-enriched uranium is available to sustain the continued operation of a nuclear reactor or a United States nuclear energy company; or importation of low-enriched uranium described in paragraph (1) is in the national interest.”
This is in place to insure against a resulting shortage of uranium fuel supplies that could cause US reactors to shut down prematurely or permanently. The waiver extends until January 2028. So a win-win for Rosatom, Kazatomprom, North American uranium corporations, the US Congress and the Biden Administration, and another tragic betrayal of Native American people.
Linda Pentz Gunter is the international specialist at Beyond Nuclear and writes for and edits Beyond Nuclear International. https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/05/19/terrible-news/
Land Defence Alliance stands united against the burial of nuclear waste
The group held a rally in Waverley Park on Tuesday afternoon.
NWO Newswatch, Clint Fleury, Apr 30, 2024
THUNDER BAY – With the decision on where Canada will store its nuclear waste looming, four of the six First Nations representatives from the Land Defence Alliance held a rally in Waverley Park to voice their concerns and dangers of this controversial project.
“We’re concerned about future leaks and accidents and we’re very concerned that if that should happen, it could contaminate the local environment like the animals and also the air and the grounds,” said Grassy Narrows Chief Rudy Turtle in an interview with Dougall Media.
Turtle was the first to take the microphone and send out a profound message of solidarity with his fellow First Nations who are opposed to the burial of used nuclear waste in the Revell Lake area.
Currently, Ignace Township and nearby Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation are each in a “willingness process” to decide whether they will be hosts for a deep geological repository between their communities.
Outside of Ignace and Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation, no other municipality or First Nation communities have a right to vote on their willingness to allow the storage of nuclear waste in Northwestern Ontario.
In southern Ontario, the municipalities of South Bruce and Saugeen Ojibway Nation are also considering being willing hosts to the repository where it is situated near them.
For many, there are too many variables and “what if” questions as the deep geological repository project slowly becomes less like a science fiction concept.
The trouble is that for many First Nation communities, the government’s track record of leaving contaminated industrial sites on treaty land has given way to skepticism. ……………………………………………………………………..
Turtle explained: “It’s coming from down south which is like 28 hours of driving, or whether it’s coming by train, it’s still like over 20 hours and there’s always the possibility of an accident. We’ve seen it happen with other chemicals. We’ve seen it happen with oil transportation.
“So, the potential, the possibility is there of an accident and people should be concerned about that. The towns that are in between during those 20-hour travel times. Those towns should be concerned. Those towns should be worried about the potential of having nuclear waste dumped or accidentally dumped along their communities.”
At the end of the rally, the Land Defence Alliance stood united to say no to the burial of nuclear waste in Northwestern Ontario. https://www.nwonewswatch.com/local-news/land-defence-alliance-stands-united-against-the-burial-of-nuclear-waste-8676906
1 This Month
5 January -Webinar-What is Trump’s Golden Dome?
REGISTER AT Massachusetts Peace Action Education
New book – https://www.amazon.com/dp/1923372157?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- December 2025 (346)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
- January 2025 (250)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 