nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Two new appeals against the Flamanville EPR

La Presse de la Manche 2nd Oct 2020, Nuclear: two new appeals against the Flamanville EPR. Several associations
have decided to seize the Council of State in order to cancel the decree
extending the construction of the Flamanville EPR until 2024. On March 25,
in the confinement, the government issued a decree extending to 2024 the
validity of the creation authorization decree of the EPR in Flamanville,
which set earlier in April 2020 its deadline for commissioning.
In a press release, several associations (“Sortir du nuclear” network, Greenpeace
France, France Nature Environnement Normandy, Crilan, Stop EPR neither in
Penly nor elsewhere) “strongly denounce this government obstinacy in
tolerating the continuation of this catastrophic project.”

https://actu.fr/normandie/flamanville_50184/nucleaire-deux-nouveaux-recours-contre-l-epr-de-flamanville_36493945.html

October 3, 2020 Posted by | France, opposition to nuclear | Leave a comment

At Greenfield, Sunderland standouts, residents protest nuclear weapons

September 29, 2020 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, USA | Leave a comment

After 4 decades of Plowshares Actions, It’s Nuclear Warfare that Should Be on Trial — Not Activists

 

Most of the Kings Bay Plowshares still await sentencing. Mom was sentenced to time served by video conference in June — a surreal and dislocating experience that is now more and more common in our criminal justice system. Her co-defendants opted to postpone sentencing in hopes that it could be in person, but it is unclear if that will happen.

After 4 decades of Plowshares Actions, It’s Nuclear Warfare that Should Be on Trial — Not Activists, Forty years ago, the Plowshares Eight sparked a movement of nuclear disarmers that continues to take responsibility for weapons of mass destruction.

Common Dreams, by Frida Berrigan 26 Sep 20,      “Nuclear warfare is not on trial here, you are!” said Judge Samuel Salus, in exasperation.

Before him were eight activists, including two priests and a nun. As Judge Salus tried to preside over the government’s prosecution of them for their trespass onto — and destruction of — private property, the eight were trying to put nuclear warfare, nuclear weapons, nuclear policy and U.S. exceptionalism on trial.

That was 40 years ago this week — ancient history by some measures. And no one reading this will be surprised to find that the eight were found guilty and the human family is still threatened by almost 15,000 nuclear warheads. So, four decades later, why isn’t nuclear warfare on trial?

They are the crime responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians 75 years ago. They have littered the landscape with radioactive waste. They have cost the United States more than $5 trillion from the public coffers. They are the apocalyptic nightmare on hair-trigger alert that haunt our children’s dreams.

On September 9, 1980, my father, Philip Berrigan, along with his brother Daniel, John Schuchardt, Dean Hammer, Elmer Maas, Molly Rush, Sister Anne Montgomery, and Father Carl Kabat, gained entry into the General Electric plant in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Once inside the complex, they poured blood over two nuclear weapons’ nose cones, and used household hammers to dent the metal. They came to be known as The Plowshares Eight. Continue reading →

September 28, 2020 Posted by | Legal, opposition to nuclear, PERSONAL STORIES, Reference, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Bosnia and Herzegovina call for a safer location for Croatia’s nuclear waste dump plan

September 24, 2020 Posted by | EUROPE, opposition to nuclear, wastes | Leave a comment

New Mexico is strongly objecting to licensing of Holtec’s multibillion-dollar nuclear waste dump plan

New Mexico objects to license for nuclear fuel storage plan, Madison.com , By SUSAN MONTOYA BRYAN Associated Press, 23 Sept 20

    • ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) — The state of New Mexico is strongly objecting to federal nuclear regulators’ preliminary recommendation that a license be granted to build a multibillion-dollar storage facility for spent nuclear fuel from commercial power plants around the U.S.

State officials, in a letter submitted Tuesday to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said the site is geologically unsuitable and technical analysis has been inadequate so far. They also say regulators have failed to consider environmental justice concerns and have therefore fallen short of requirements spelled out by federal environmental laws.

The letter also reiterates the state’s concerns that the storage facility would become a permanent dumping ground for the spent fuel, as the federal government has no permanent plan for dealing with the waste that has been piling up at nuclear power plants.

The officials pointed to a legacy of contamination in New Mexico that includes uranium mining and milling and decades of nuclear research and bomb-making at national laboratories, saying minority and low-income populations already have suffered disproportionate health and environmental effects as a result.

Given the concerns, state officials wrote that a draft environmental review of the project “fails to demonstrate that residents of New Mexico, including vulnerable populations, will be adequately protected from exposure to the radioactive and toxic contaminants that could be released to air and water by the proposed action.”

A group of Democratic state lawmakers also raised concerns, sending separate comments to the commission that pointed to resolutions passed by a number of cities and counties in New Mexico and Texas that are opposed to building the facility.

Elected leaders in southeastern New Mexico support the project, saying it would bring jobs and revenue to the region and provide a temporary option for dealing with the spent fuel.

The deadline to comment on draft environmental review was Tuesday. A study on the project’s impact on human safety is pending and will require another round of public comment.

New Jersey-based Holtec is seeking a 40-year license to build what it has described as a state-of-the-art complex near Carlsbad. The first phase calls for storing up to 8,680 metric tons of uranium, which would be packed into 500 canisters. Future expansion could make room for as many as 10,000 canisters of spent nuclear fuel……. https://madison.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/new-mexico-objects-to-license-for-nuclear-fuel-storage-plan/article_f13be5d3-9381-57dd-aa21-b83915cb57c0.html

September 24, 2020 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Western Canadians do not want ”Small” nuclear reactors in Sakatchewan

Premier asks Trudeau to support nuclear reactors in upcoming throne speech, Yorkton This Week Michael Bramadat-Willcock – Local Journalism Initiative (Canada’s National Observer) / Yorkton This Week, SEPTEMBER 16, 2020 Premier Scott Moe has sent a letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau outlining Saskatchewan’s priorities ahead of the federal throne speech on Sept. 23. In it, he is asking Trudeau to support nuclear development in the province.

Moe wants the development of small modular nuclear reactors, also known as SMRs, in Saskatchewan to be part of Trudeau’s green agenda. ……..

In December, Moe signed a memorandum of understanding with the premiers of Ontario and New Brunswick to work together on further developing the nuclear industry.  ……..

In his letter, the premier also focused on support for the oil and gas sectors, and pushed for pausing the carbon tax.

The Supreme Court of Canada will hear arguments on the federal carbon tax at the same time as the throne speech is delivered. …………

But western Canadians don’t all see eye-to-eye on the deployment of nuclear reactors, even small ones.

Committee for Future Generations outreach co-ordinator Candyce Paul of La Plonge at the English River First Nation earlier told Canada’s National Observer that while they haven’t been consulted on any aspects of the plan, all signs point to the north as a site for the reactors.

On Tuesday, Paul called it ironic that Moe spoke of western alienation from Ottawa when many in the north feel the same way about Regina.

“Trudeau, please represent the people of northern Saskatchewan because Scott Moe does not,” Paul said.

Paul’s group fights nuclear waste storage in Saskatchewan and was instrumental in stopping a proposal that considered Beauval, Pinehouse and Creighton as storage locations in 2011.

“When we informed the communities that they were looking at planning to bury nuclear waste up here in 2011, once they learned what that entailed, everybody said, ‘No way.’ Eighty per cent of the people in the north said, ‘No way, absolutely not.’ It didn’t matter if they worked for Cameco or the other mines. They said, if it comes here, we will not support it coming here,” Paul said in an interview last month. ………..

Paul said the intent behind using SMRs is anything but green and that the real goal is to prop up Saskatchewan’s ailing uranium industry and develop oilsands in the northwest.

“He’s put it right in the letter. His fear is they’re going to put out a green policy that will hurt the oil and gas sector,” Paul said.

“They’ve been looking for a way to bring the tar sands to northern Saskatchewan. We all know the mess that makes. Using small modular reactors is not lessening the carbon impact.”

She said in August that communities around Canada, and especially in the Far North, have long been pitched as sites for SMR development and nuclear waste storage, but have refused.

“None of our people are going to get trained for operating these. It supports people from other places. It doesn’t really support us,” Paul said.

Paul said on Tuesday that SMRs under 200 megawatts are currently excluded from environmental impact assessments, which means a lack of opportunity for public input.

She also said that interconnected water systems in the north would mean pollution would travel quickly into the ecosystem if there was a mishap at a reactor site.

Brooke Dobni, professor of strategy at the University of Saskatchewan’s Edwards School of Business, told Canada’s National Observer in August that any development of small reactors would take a long time.

“It could be a good thing, but on the other hand, it might have some pitfalls. Those talks take years,” Dobni said.

He said nuclear reactors face bigger challenges that have to be addressed before they can go ahead, such as public support for protecting the environment, the high cost of building infrastructure, and containing nuclear fallout and radiation.

“Anything nuclear is 25 years out if you’re talking about small reactors, those kinds of things to power up the city,” Dobni said.

“That technology is a long ways away and a lot of it’s going to depend on public opinion.

“The court for that is the court of public opinion, whether or not people want that in their own backyard, and that’s the whole issue anywhere in the world.”

On Tuesday, Paul asked the federal government to invest in critical infrastructure instead.

“We need money spent in a serious way. Not on small modular reactors that could happen in 25 years. We need things now. To bring us up to the standards in our health system, we need health facilities. The public doesn’t want the government subsidizing industries that are about to go bust. It’s a waste of money,” Paul said.

“We have extreme needs that aren’t being met by industry and never will be met by industry. Trudeau, put the money where you want to make some real reconciliation happen.”https://www.yorktonthisweek.com/regional-news/premier-asks-trudeau-to-support-nuclear-reactors-in-upcoming-throne-speech-1.24204052

September 17, 2020 Posted by | Canada, opposition to nuclear | Leave a comment

Nuclear waste flyers heading to 50,000 households in Grey-Bruce

September 15, 2020 Posted by | Canada, opposition to nuclear | Leave a comment

Suttsu, Hokkaido, residents oppose radioactive waste dump plan

Residents Oppose Hokkaido Town’s Radioactive Waste Site Plan  https://www.nippon.com/en/news/yjj2020091000878/residents-oppose-hokkaido-town%27s-radioactive-waste-site-plan.html   Suttsu, Hokkaido, Sept. 11 (Jiji Press)–Many residents of a Japanese town considering hosting a final disposal facility for high-level radioactive waste have voiced opposition to the plan at a briefing session organized by the municipal government.The meeting was the fourth of its kind for residents of the town of Suttsu in the northernmost Japan prefecture of Hokkaido. The first such session was held on Monday.

At Thursday’s meeting, which was opened to the press, Suttsu Mayor Haruo Kataoka explained the reasons for considering applying for a literature survey, the first stage of a three-stage research process to select the location of the final disposal site for high-level radioactive waste from nuclear power plants.

Some 260 residents attended the session, which lasted for over three hours from 6:30 p.m. (9:30 a.m. GMT).

Participating residents voiced concerns that the move will lead to harmful rumors about the town, and that if the town receives subsidies from the Japanese government as a result of applying for the literature survey, it will have no choice but to become a final disposal site. Some said that detailed discussions should be held after the mayoral election in the town next year.

September 14, 2020 Posted by | Japan, opposition to nuclear, politics, wastes | Leave a comment

Campaign against nuclear fuel waste storage in South Bruce, Canada

Opposition group launches education campaign against nuclear fuel bunker in South Bruce,  https://blackburnnews.com/uncategorized/2020/09/10/opposition-group-launches-education-campaign-nuclear-fuel-bunker-south-bruce/    By Janice MacKaySeptember 10, 2020 3:40pm

People in communities near the Municipality of South Bruce may receive a leaflet from the group Protect Our Waterways-No Nuclear Waste with information on the proposal to store used nuclear fuel deep underground near Teeswater.

Spokesman Michelle Stein said 50,000 leaflets were sent out this week to let people know some of the group’s concerns about the plan to store Canada’s nuclear waste in a Deep Geologic Repository or DGR.

Stein said the Nuclear Waste Management Organization is assembling land in the municipality of South Bruce to store irradiated nuclear fuel from 4.6 million spent fuel bundles.

“The proposed site includes the Teeswater River flowing through it, and that leads to Lake Huron. And 40 million people get their drinking water from Lake Huron,” she said.

“It’s a decision that is going to affect so many people, and change our community in such a large way, I think each individual deserves to have a vote,” she added.

Stein says 1,600 residents of South Bruce signed a petition opposing the proposed DGR.    Stein wants to see a referendum on the issue, as both the Nuclear Waste Management Organization and the municipality have stated that the project needs broad community support to go ahead.

If the proposed nuclear waste dump is approved there will be two loads of spent nuclear fuel travelling by truck every day for forty years from Canada’s nuclear reactors. And if there is a radioactive leak underground it could affect 40 million people in Canada and the US,” said Stein.“People need to know the risks. Nowhere in the world is there an operating DGR for high-level nuclear waste as is being proposed here. Underground storage sites for low-medium level nuclear waste in the US and Germany have leaked radioactive material and required multi-billion-dollar clean-ups”, says Stein. “I encourage everyone who lives in a community near South Bruce to contact their own Mayor and tell them you oppose NWMO’s proposal for a nuclear waste dump.”

POW-NNW believes that the “rolling stewardship” method of managing nuclear waste is better because it maintains it in a monitored and retrievable state at all times, with continual improvements to packaging and environmental protection.

Stein added that ongoing scientific studies examine how spent nuclear fuel can be reused, reduced, and even neutralized. In its initial report to Parliament, the NWMO did not say that on-site storage at the reactor sites was unsafe or not feasible.

September 12, 2020 Posted by | Canada, opposition to nuclear, wastes | Leave a comment

In South Australia, Farmers, Traditional Owners fight radioactive waste dump

As Woolford pointed out, of 2789 submissions received in a public consultation 94.5% oppose the facility.

Farmers, Traditional Owners fight radioactive waste dump  https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/farmers-traditional-owners-fight-radioactive-waste-dump, Renfrey Clarke, Adelaide, September 8, 2020

In a marginal grain-growing district of South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula, construction for a national repository for Australia’s radioactive wastes will begin soon — or so the federal government hopes.

A 160-hectare tract of farmland has been purchased near the small town of Kimba and, as inducement to deliver support for the plan, local residents have been promised a $31 million “community development package.” A non-binding ballot conducted last November among residents of the Kimba District Council area recorded 62% in favour of the scheme.

But opponents of the dump remain active and vocal. As well as farmers and townsfolk concerned for their safety and for the “clean and green” reputation of the district’s produce, those against the plan include the Barngarla First Nations people, who hold native title over the area. Continue reading →

September 10, 2020 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, opposition to nuclear, wastes | Leave a comment

Bob Halstead has done a great job defending Nevada from nuclear waste dumping at Yucca Mountain

September 8, 2020 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, PERSONAL STORIES, politics, USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Canada communities don’t want the so-called “clean” Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs)

even with SMRs under 300 megawatts, nuclear waste is a byproduct.

waste generated from SMRs would become a dangerous part of the transportation system “even if they do remove it.” 

“It will be big, big transports of highly radioactive stuff, driving down the roads as an easy dirty bomb

 the high cost of building infrastructure and then containing nuclear fallout and radiation are all concerns before they can go ahead. 

Nuclear giants team up to develop reactors in Sask. and Ontario, Michael Bramadat-Willcock / Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, National Observer, AUGUST 23, 2020 

Canada’s leading nuclear industry players announced an inter-provincial corporate partnership Thursday to support the launch of a research centre that will work on developing small modular reactors (SMRs) for use in Saskatchewan.

Saskatoon-based Cameco is the world’s biggest uranium producer and has long supplied fuel to Bruce Power, Ontario’s largest nuclear power company.SMRs are designed to produce smaller amounts of electricity, between 50 and 300 megawatts,……

This agreement comes on the heels of Saskatchewan announcing a nuclear secretariat to make way for reactors.

The secretariat is mandated to develop and execute a strategic plan for the use of “clean-energy small modular reactors” in the province. ……

No timeframe or SMR sites were included in the announcement, but the government’s plans already have some northern residents raising alarms.

Committee for Future Generations outreach co-ordinator Candyce Paul of La Plonge at the English River First Nation told Canada’s National Observer that they haven’t been consulted on any aspects of the plan, but all signs point to the north as a site for the reactors.

Paul’s group fights nuclear waste storage in Saskatchewan and was instrumental in stopping a proposal that considered Beauval, Pinehouse and Creighton as storage locations in 2011.

“When we informed the communities that they were looking at planning to bury nuclear waste up here in 2011, once they learned what that entailed, everybody said no way. Eighty per cent of the people in the north said no way, absolutely not. It didn’t matter if they worked for Cameco or the other mines. They said if it comes here, we will not support it coming here,” she said.

Paul said she sees small modular nuclear reactors as another threat to the environment and to human safety in the region.

She noted that even with SMRs under 300 megawatts, nuclear waste is a byproduct.

“Even if they’re not burying nuclear waste here, they could be leaving it on site or hauling it through our northern regions and across our waterways,” Paul said.

She said that waste generated from SMRs would become a dangerous part of the transportation system “even if they do remove it.”

“It will be big, big transports of highly radioactive stuff, driving down the roads as an easy dirty bomb. You’d be driving down the road (behind a nuclear waste transport vehicle) and not know you’re following it,” Paul said.

Paul said the intent behind installing SMRs is anything but green and that the real goal is to prop up Saskatchewan’s ailing uranium industry and develop oilsands in the northwest.

Paul said that communities around Canada, and especially in the Far North, have long been pitched as sites for SMR development and have refused.

A 2018 brief from Pangnirtung Hamlet Council in Nunavut concluded “any Arctic-based nuclear power source should be an alternative energy choice of last resort.”

“None of our people are going to get trained for operating these. It supports people from other places. It doesn’t really support us,” Paul said.

SMRs have been pitched in the north as a way to move away from reliance on diesel fuel, which can be costly. Paul said any benefits of that remain to be seen.

She said companies would need to do environmental impact assessments for smaller reactors even though the exclusion zone around SMR sites is smaller.

“Even if the exclusion zone is only a few kilometres, a few kilometres affects a lot in an ecosystem and especially in an ecosystem that is wild,” Paul said.

“I’m not feeling confident in this at all, Canadian nuclear laboratories saying that it would only be a small radius exclusion zone. Well that’s our territory. That’s our land, our waters, our wildlife.

“It’s not their backyard, so they couldn’t care less.”

Brooke Dobni, professor of strategy at the University of Saskatchewan’s Edwards School of Business, told Canada’s National Observer that any development of small reactors would take a long time.

“It could be a good thing, but on the other hand, it might have some pitfalls. Those talks take years,” Dobni said.

He said nuclear reactors face bigger challenges because of public concerns about the environment and that the high cost of building infrastructure and then containing nuclear fallout and radiation are all concerns before they can go ahead.

“Anything nuclear is 25 years out if you’re talking about small reactors, those kinds of things to power up the city,” Dobni said.

“That technology is a long ways away and a lot of it’s going to depend on public opinion.

The court for that is the court of public opinion, whether or not people want that in their own backyard, and that’s the whole issue anywhere in the world.”  https://www.humboldtjournal.ca/news/nuclear-giants-team-up-to-develop-reactors-in-sask-and-ontario-1.24191077

August 24, 2020 Posted by | Canada, opposition to nuclear, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Growing national opposition to Holtec plan for ‘temporary’ storage of nuclear wastes near Carlsbad, New Mexico

National resistance builds against nuclear waste facility near Carlsbad

Nationwide opposition of a nuclear waste storage facility proposed to be built near Carlsbad and Hobbs continued its call for the licensing process for the project to be suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic and that the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission deny the application altogether.

Holtec International proposed to build the site to store high-level spent nuclear fuel rods transported to southeast New Mexico from generator sites across the county.

Many of the rods are already stored in cooling pools near the generator sites, which supporters of the project said were unsafe as many are located near large bodies of water or densely populated areas.

The concept of Holtec’s consolidated interim storage facility (CISF) was to temporarily store the spent fuel in a remote location while a permanent repository was developed.

Such a facility to permanently store the waste does not exist in the U.S.

The idea faced opposition from New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and State Land Commissioner Stephanie Garcia Richard along with other state lawmakers.

And during a Thursday public hearing held by the NRC, numerous nuclear watchdog groups from around the country voiced their opposition.

The NRC announced last week it would hold four such online hearings including Thursday’s with others scheduled for Aug. 25, 26 and Sept. 2 to solicit public comments on the Commission’s recently released environmental impact statement (EIS).

The EIS released earlier this year found the project would have minimal environmental impacts during the construction, operation and decommissioning of the facility.

The EIS was required for the first phase of Holtec’s plan for 500 cannisters to be stored, but the NRC also considered the company’s expressed intention to apply for future permits for 19 additional phases for a total of 10,000 cannisters of nuclear waste.

Leona Morgan of the Nuclear Issues Study Group based in Albuquerque said the online hearing process was unjust as many New Mexicans live without adequate internet or phone service to participate in electronic hearings.

While she called for the NRC to reject Holtec’s application, citing safety and environmental risks to the region of the facility and communities along the transportation routes, Morgan also questioned the hearing process itself as it continued during the global pandemic.

Leona Morgan of the Nuclear Issues Study Group based in Albuquerque said the online hearing process was unjust as many New Mexicans live without adequate internet or phone service to participate in electronic hearings.

While she called for the NRC to reject Holtec’s application, citing safety and environmental risks to the region of the facility and communities along the transportation routes, Morgan also questioned the hearing process itself as it continued during the global pandemic.

The Nuclear Issues Study Group, which held a continued presence during the past three public hearings held this year, and NRC’s scoping meetings held in 2018, would boycott the rest of the proceedings, Morgan said.

“There are a large portion of our state that lives without phone or internet service. Our organization is boycotting the rest of these proceedings. It is a sham. There is no reason to rush this process except to line the pockets of shareholders,” she said.

“We see this as a violation of our rights to submit our public comments under the National Environmental Policy Act. And it violates environmental justice. We can’t even verify that the NRC is sitting before us.”

More:Nuclear waste site near Carlsbad opposed by indigenous groups during public hearing

John LaForge, of nuclear watchdog group Nukewatch of Wisconsin also voiced his opposition to the project and ongoing proceedings, pointing to widespread opposition in New Mexico and among Tribal nations.

He demanded public hearings be held in up to 40 states other than New Mexico that could be impacted by the transportation of waste.

“There is no compelling reason at this time for these meetings to be rushed. I opposed this plan due to the governors of New Mexico and of 20 tribal nations,” LaForge said. “With these online meetings, it is apparent to me that the NRC has no interest in the public’s concerns. The people of New Mexico have said no.”

He also criticized the EIS as the NRC noted in the report it would expect no radiation release should there be an accident at the facility.

“In its review, the NRC said it assume in an accident there would be no release of radiation,” LaForge said. “That is alarming and preposterous.”

Petuuche Gilbert of the Acoma Coalition for a Safe Environment based in the Acoma Pueblo near Albuquerque also questioned the EIS as it only considered the environmental impacts of the project for 40 years and only within a 50 mile radius.

“We believe the analysis needs to go beyond the 40 year possibility of storing the waste. We all know the nuclear waste and radioactivity extends beyond that limited timeframe. It really needs to go on for hundreds or thousands of years,” Gilbert said.

“You have the possibility of accidents that could occur along the transportation corridors. The cumulative analysis is limited only to a 50 mile radius. It really needs to be more.”

Adrian Hedden can be reached at 575-628-5516, achedden@currentargus.com or @AdrianHedden on Twitter.

August 22, 2020 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, USA, wastes | Leave a comment

Resistance to nuclear waste survey in Hokkaido

Hokkaido town may delay bid for nuclear waste survey amid pushback, Japan Times , JIJI, Aug 21, 2020

SAPPORO – The mayor of Suttsu in Hokkaido, which is considering applying for a survey to host a final disposal site for high-level radioactive waste, said Friday that it might be difficult to make the decision by September as planned.

“It is difficult to make the decision after listening to many voices,” Suttsu Mayor Haruo Kataoka told reporters after meeting with the nine members of the town’s assembly. “It would not be appropriate to rush the decision by our own judgment. Our plan to decide in September might be postponed.”

Kataoka’s remarks came a day after the mayors of three municipalities neighboring Suttsu said Thursday they will urge the town to make a careful decision.

The mayors of the three municipalities unveiled the plan at a meeting with Hokkaido Gov. Naomichi Suzuki.

Of the three, Rankoshi Mayor Hideyuki Kon and Kuromatsunai Mayor Mitsuru Kamada expressed opposition to Suttsu’s move, which involves applying for a literary survey, the first stage of the process for choosing a disposal site.

Kon, Kamada and Shimamaki Mayor Masaru Fujisawa told Suzuki that they will ask Suttsu as early as this month to make a careful decision on the application. ……..

Seven other municipalities, including the town of Niseko, an internationally known ski resort, are planning to oppose the plan, sources said Friday.

Also on Friday, members of the association of fisheries cooperatives made up of nine co-ops around Suttsu, submitted to Kataoka a protest letter expressing strong opposition to the town’s plan.

Referring to the fact that the fisheries industry suffered harmful rumors following the 2011 triple core meltdown at the Fukushima No. 1 power plant, the letter said: “It is utterly unacceptable for those in the fisheries industry. It will have an immeasurable adverse impact not only on the region but also on the fisheries industry as a whole.”

Katsuo Hamano, head of the association, criticized the mayor for making an announcement on the plan even before obtaining the municipal assembly’s approval.

“It goes against the rules of parliamentary democracy,” Hamano told reporters…….

The central government offers up to ¥2 billion in subsidies to any municipality that undergoes the literary survey  https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/08/21/national/hokkaido-suttsu-nuclear-waste-survey-delay/

August 22, 2020 Posted by | Japan, opposition to nuclear, politics, wastes | Leave a comment

Community opposition to South Bruce Nuclear Waste Repository

August 22, 2020 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, wastes | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »