nuclear-news

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

Hundreds of Scientists Urge Biden to Cancel $100 Billion Nuclear Weapons Boondoggle

 

“There is no sound technical or strategic rationale for spending tens of billions of dollars building new nuclear weapons,” an expert said.

Edward Carver, Common Dreams. JULY 11, 2024  https://www.commondreams.org/news/scientists-end-land-based-nuclear-weapons

More than 700 scientists on Monday called for an end to the United States’ land-based nuclear weapons program that’s set to be replaced, following a Pentagon decision to approve the program despite soaring costs.

In an open letter to President Joe Biden and Congress, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) argued that the new intercontinental-range ballistic missile system, known as Sentinel, was “expensive, dangerous, and unnecessary.”

The Department of Defense on Monday certified the continuation of the project, releasing the results of a review that was legally required when the cost estimate ballooned to “at least” $131 billion earlier this year, which drew the scrutiny of some Democrats in Congress, according toThe Hill.

The Defense review found that Sentinel was “essential to national security,” but the scientists disagreed with the assessment.

“There is no sound technical or strategic rationale for spending tens of billions of dollars building new nuclear weapons,” Tara Drozdenko, director of UCS’ global security program, said in a statement.

Nobel Prize-winning physicist Barry Barish, a signatory to the letter, was also harshly critical of the Pentagon’s approach.

“It is unconscionable to continue to develop nuclear weapons, like the Sentinel program,” he said.

The soaring costs of Sentinel, which is overseen by the defense contractor Northrup Grumman, have been the subject of media attention. The program will cost an estimated $214 million per missile, far more than originally expected, Bloombergreported on Friday.

However, the cost is hardly the only reason to cancel the program, UCS scientists argue. The silos that house the nuclear missiles, which are found in North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and Nebraska, are vulnerable to attack—in fact, they are designed to draw enemy weapons away other U.S. targets, according toScientific American. Such an attack would expose huge swaths of the American population to radioactive fallout.

Because they are a likely target, the siloed missiles are kept on “hair-trigger” alert so the U.S. president can launch them within minutes. This “increases the risk of nuclear war” that could start from false alarms, miscalculations, or misunderstandings, the UCS letter states.

The scientists further argue that there’s no need for a land-based nuclear weapons system given the effectiveness of nuclear-armed submarines—one of the other parts of the nuclear triad, along with bomber jets. Such submarines are “hidden at sea” and “essentially invulnerable to attack,” according to the letter. Moreover, the submarine missiles are just as accurate as land-based missiles, and already have “destructive capability than could ever be employed effectively,” it states.

The submarine system is also being overhauled, as is the ‘air’ component of the nuclear triad. In total, the U.S. military plans to spend more than $1 trillion over 30 years on renewing the nuclear arsenal, according to the Arms Control Association.

The U.S. leads the way in a surge of global spending on nuclear arms, according to two studies published last month, one of which found that nearly $3,000 per second was spent in 2023.

July 16, 2024 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, USA | Leave a comment

Campaigners against Sizewell C hopeful new MPs will take their concerns to parliament

The campaign group Stop Sizewell C says it’s heard from several MPs already

Jasmine Oak, 10th Jul 2024,  https://hellorayo.co.uk/greatest-hits/west-norfolk/news/stop-sizewell-c-campaigners-new-mp-hopes/

Campaigners are calling on the new Government to consider scrapping plans to build a nuclear power plant on the Suffolk Coast

Once up and running, it’s thought Sizewell C will power up to six million homes, but activists say it’s going to devastate our countryside

Alison Downes is from ‘Stop Sizewell C’ group – and says Sir Kier Starmer needs to listen to their concerns: “The priority needs to be preventing there being any more unnecessary damage to the local environment.

“We have already seen a fair amount of damage, but that’s nothing compared with what’s to come…

“The government needs to resist any pressure from the nuclear industry for a hasty decision, especially as Sizewell C is going to take a long time, and a lot of money, to build.”

Alison’s hoping the local area’s new MPs will voice their concerns in Parliament: “Our new MP has publicly said that Stop Sizewell C was the first group she met with when she was elected.

“We also have the co-leader of the Green Party, Adrian Ramsay, in Waveney Valley. He’s been very vocal against Sizewell C.”

A spokesperson for EDF Energy has previously told us: “Our proposals for Sizewell C will see the creation of a 3.2 gigawatt power station that will create low-carbon electricity that will supply 6 million homes.

“This will be delivering clean, reliable, and affordable power for generations.”

July 16, 2024 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, politics, UK | Leave a comment

First Nation challenges nuclear waste decision in federal court

By Natasha Bulowski & Matteo Cimellaro | News, Urban Indigenous Communities in Ottawa | July 12th 2024Observer  

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2024/07/12/news/first-nation-challenges-nuclear-waste-decision-federal-court

A First Nation concerned about approval of a nuclear waste disposal facility near the Ottawa River was before federal court this week to challenge the decision.

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission greenlit the project on Jan. 9 and less than one month later, Kebaowek First Nation filed for a judicial review.

Kebaowek’s legal challenge is centred on the United Nations Declaration Act (UNDA), which enshrined the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) into Canadian law. The declaration specifically references the need for free, prior and informed consent when hazardous waste will be stored in a nation’s territory.

Kebaowek argued in court that Canadian Nuclear Laboratories — the private consortium responsible for managing the Chalk River nuclear site — did not secure the First Nation’s free, prior and informed consent during the licensing process, as mandated under Canadian law, when it was looking to store the waste at a site about a kilometre from the Ottawa River. The Ottawa River (known as the Kichi Sibi in Algonquin) holds immense spiritual and cultural importance for the Algonquin people and is a source of drinking water for millions.

Canadian Nuclear Laboratories wants to permanently dispose of one million cubic metres of radioactive waste in a shallow mound as a solution to waste accumulated over the last seven decades of operations and into the future. The company said the containment mound will only hold low-level waste.

A former employee at Chalk River told Canada’s National Observer a portion of the waste destined for the mound is a “mishmash” of intermediate- and low-level radioactivity because prior to 2000 there were inadequate systems to properly label, characterize, store and track what was produced at Chalk River or shipped there from other labs. Intermediate-level waste remains radioactive for longer than low-level waste and requires disposal deeper underground.

“It’s such a huge project that I don’t think most people are aware of just how big this is,” Coun. Justin Roy of Kebaowek First Nation told Canada’s National Observer in an interview after a press conference in Ottawa on July 10.

“We’re not talking about a pipeline that might not be there in a couple dozen years, or a mine that’s going to be up and running and close in 20 years, or a bridge that might be torn down one of these days. We’re talking about a huge mound that has a life expectancy, expectancy upwards of 500 years,” Roy said.

The First Nation is asking the Federal Court of Appeals to reject the nuclear safety commission’s decision to greenlight the facility and declare that the commission breached its duty to consult Kebaowek.

Kebaowek was in federal court July 10 and 11 to make its case that the project approval should be set aside or reconsidered. The First Nation argued two main points: First, that the nuclear safety commission refused to take the Canadian UNDRIP act into consideration, and that means the consultation process was flawed from the outset.

Second, the nation argues the project will rely largely on a forest management plan that has yet to be created to mitigate environmental impacts, Coun. Justin Roy of Kebaowek First Nation told Canada’s National Observer in an interview.

Canadian Nuclear Laboratories’ lawyers argued the commitment to create a forest management plan and have it approved by the nuclear safety commission is appropriate, and disagreed with Kebawoek’s description of it as a “blank piece of paper,” saying it is intended to be a “living document” and respond to different situations yet to arise. The company’s testimony on July 11 also highlighted different instances — letters, phone calls, in-person meetings — where it engaged with Kebaowek First Nation.

Justice Julie Blackhawk will issue a decision at a later date.

A ‘litmus test’

When Parliament was in its consultation process regarding the United Nations Declaration Act, First Nation leadership across Canada spoke up because chiefs thought the legislation “needed to have teeth,” Lance Haymond, Chief of Kebaowek First Nation said in an interview. However, the legislation was never re-written to give it weight, leading to a “failure of implementation from the beginning,” he explained.

“Here we are stuck with a piece of legislation that could be stronger,” Haymond said of testing the United Nations Declaration Act (UNDA) in court over the nuclear waste facility. The success or failure of the judicial review will serve as a litmus test of how much sway the new Canadian law holds in the courts, Haymond said.

“Our case will hopefully demonstrate how it can be applied in a real world situation,” he added.

This judicial review is one of three legal challenges against the near surface disposal facility.

At a July 10 press conference, Sébastien Lemire, Bloc Québécois MP for Abitibi-Témiscamingue, emphasized his party’s support for the legal challenge. Lemire also promised continued support at future press conferences, in Question Period and in work at committees like the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

Canadian Nuclear Laboratories is run by a consortium of private companies (including AtkinsRéalis, formerly known as SNC-Lavalin) and is contracted by the federal government to operate its laboratories and deal with waste.

Over 75 years, Chalk River Laboratories developed CANDU reactors, did nuclear weapons research, supplied the United States’ nuclear weapons program with plutonium and uranium, and at one time was the world’s largest supplier of medical isotopes used to diagnose and treat cancers.

About 60 people attended a public rally in front of the Supreme Court on July 10 to support the First Nation, according to Vi Bui with the Council of Canadians.

It’s not the first time the public has given their support.

Kebaowek’s legal fund has been largely crowdfunded and supported by Raven Trust, a charity that raises legal funds for Indigenous nations, Haymond said.

If Kebaowek loses, it’s still unclear if they will appeal the decision, he added.

“Our ancestors would probably roll over in their graves if they were to hear that we would just allow a nuclear waste dump that’s going to hold one million cubic metres of waste adjacent to the Ottawa River,” Roy said. “We are people who have been here since time immemorial; this mound, if it proceeds, it can maybe outlast all of us here.”

July 13, 2024 Posted by | Canada, opposition to nuclear, wastes | Leave a comment

Anti-nuclear protestors to march from Norwich to Lakenheath

By Jude Holden, 12 July 24  https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/24449062.anti-nuclear-protestors-march-norwich-lakenheath/

A 10-day peace camp against nuclear weapons being stationed in Suffolk will begin with demonstrators walking 40 miles from Norwich to Lakenheath.

The protest follows reports that the United States Air Force base, RAF Lakenheath is preparing facilities to house and guard nuclear bombs.

Around 150 members from the Lakenheath Alliance for Peace are expected to walk and cycle from Norwich to Lakenheath on Saturday, July 13.

This is expected to take up to three days before the group establishes a vigil for peace at the base’s main gate.

A hand delivered letter is set to be delivered to the base commander with more people expected to arrive at the camp.

The Alliance aims to be at the base between July 15 until Thursday, July 25.

Lakenheath Alliance for Peace activist, Alison Lochhead said this will be a peaceful protest “We have absolutely no intention of being arrested whatsoever, we are there for a peaceful vigil”, she said.

But added: “However, if the powers that be decide to arrest us, well that’s another thing altogether.

“We’re there to raise awareness about the situation.”

Ms Lochhead continued: “Our cause is essential. All these proposals go on behind closed doors. They are bringing back nuclear weapons onto UK soil without any debate whatsoever.

“It is really important that people raise their voices in any way they can.

“That could mean joining us on the walk, or writing a letter to their MP or standing outside the base or even just talking to friends and relations about it.”

She added: “At the moment the military tensions in this world are so high. It is scary.

“We really don’t need to crank it up further and I think people just need to say please deescalate all of this, there are other ways to solve conflict.”

The walk will start outside Norwich City Hall at 10am and the group will then go via the Peace Pillar in Chapelfield Gardens, then on to Unthank Road, Newmarket Road, through Cringleford and on towards Hethersett and Wymondham.

The vigil, which will go on round the clock.

July 13, 2024 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, UK | Leave a comment

First Nations and allies resist proposed radioactive waste repository

The site-selection process has been riddled with controversy. The nuclear industry funds the NWMO and appoints its board members. As a result, despite being structured as a not-for-profit corporation, the NWMO is effectively controlled by industry. In some cases, the large sums of money the NWMO has paid Indigenous and municipal governments as part of its site selection process have led to accusations of governments being bought off by the nuclear industry.  Communities downstream from the repository site, as well as the many along the transportation route, are effectively excluded from the ‘willingness’ decision.

the process is unfolding in the context of ongoing poverty and economic deprivation in many Indigenous communities in Canada, making it incredibly difficult for many First Nations to say “no”

If Canada is to have a just transition away from fossil fuels, then it cannot be based on nuclear power

Canadian Dimension, Warren Bernauer, Laura Tanguay, Elysia Petrone, and Brennain Lloyd / June 28, 2024

On April 30, 2024, First Nations leaders organized a rally in Anemki Wequedong (Thunder Bay) to protest a proposed nuclear waste repository in northwestern Ontario between Ignace and Dryden. The speakers included representatives of Grassy Narrows First Nation, Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug, Ojibways of Onigaming First Nation, Gull Bay First Nation, and Fort William First Nation.

Michele Solomon, Chief of Fort William First Nation, welcomed all the participants to her traditional territory and stated that her community is “strongly opposed to the transportation of nuclear waste through our territory and we will stand by that, we will continue to stand by that, and we stand with all those who are also opposed.”

Another leader from the Robinson-Superior Treaty area, Chief Wilfred King of Gull Bay First Nation, told the crowd, “We fully support the First Nations that are against the burying of nuclear waste in our territories. …. we vehemently oppose the transportation of any nuclear waste through our territory.” According to King, his community’s position was grounded in concerns with potential accidents along the transportation route. “We have many rivers and tributaries that intersect the Trans Canada Highway and we feel that this will have a very serious impact to our resources and our territory should there be a spill.”

A similar position was expressed by Rudy Turtle, Chief of Grassy Narrows, whose traditional territories are situated in Treaty 3 and downstream from the proposed repository. “[A]s Grassy Narrows First Nation we are saying no to nuclear waste. We are saying no to any kind of dumping within our traditional territory.” Turtle continued, “I’m thinking ahead I’m thinking of two, three, four, generations ahead and I know I won’t be around, but I hope that one day one of my great-grandchildren will say great-grandpa stood up for us, great-grandpa stood up for us spoke up for us now we’re able to enjoy our Earth.”

Environmental injustice by design

The proposal for a repository in the Ignace area is being advanced by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), a not-for-profit corporation comprised of the nuclear power companies that generate and own the radioactive wastes.  The 2002 Nuclear Fuel Waste Act required Canada’s nuclear power generation companies (Ontario Power Generation, New Brunswick Power Corporation and Hydro-Québec) to establish and fund the NWMO and tasked them with the long-term management of Canada’s used nuclear fuel. After an initial study, in 2005 the NWMO submitted a plan to the federal government to dispose of Canada’s used nuclear fuel in a deep geological repository (DGR). Two years later the federal government agreed.

The NWMO’s process to select a site for the DGR officially began in 2010, when it opened calls for “expressions of interest” from potential host communities. After initially examining over 20 communities, in 2020 the NWMO short-listed two Ontario municipalities as potential “hosts” for all of Canada’s high-level nuclear waste: Ignace and South Bruce. Both municipalities have signed hosting agreements with the NWMO, and have committed to deciding whether or not they are “willing hosts” by the end of 2024.

In both cases, the NWMO has indicated that the proposed DGR would only move forward with the support of adjacent Indigenous communities. South Bruce, neighbouring the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station, lies within the traditional territory of the Saugeen Ojibway Nation, which includes Saugeen First Nation and Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation. Ignace, located on the Trans-Canada Highway, is a small community reliant on forestry and eco-tourism. It lies on the traditional territory of the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation and the Ojibway Nation of Saugeen.

The site-selection process has been riddled with controversy. The nuclear industry funds the NWMO and appoints its board members. As a result, despite being structured as a not-for-profit corporation, the NWMO is effectively controlled by industry. In some cases, the large sums of money the NWMO has paid Indigenous and municipal governments as part of its site selection process have led to accusations of governments being bought off by the nuclear industry. Communities downstream from the repository site, as well as the many along the transportation route, are effectively excluded from the ‘willingness’ decision.  In the case of the proposed DGR in northwestern Ontario, the NWMO’s “host” community of Ignace is 45 kilometres east of the proposed DGR site and is not just upstream but in a different watershed. There are smaller communities closer to the site who are not part of the NWMO’s “willingness process.” While the NWMO has stated that the DGR would not proceed without the support of Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation, other First Nations with historic and ongoing land use near or overlapping the project area are not being afforded the same respect.

The process is an example of structural injustice. By seeking ‘expressions of interest’ from individual communities, the industry made it inevitable that the poorest communities—including those with the fewest resources to represent their residents’ interests vis-à-vis the nuclear industry—would be the first to step forward. And the process is unfolding in the context of ongoing poverty and economic deprivation in many Indigenous communities in Canada, making it incredibly difficult for many First Nations to say “no” to most proposals for what is presented as development or the more benign sounding advance funding agreements to “learn more” about the project. The fact that a nuclear waste dump appears to be an opportunity to some people and municipalities in northwestern Ontario says more about the deplorable track record of capitalist development in the North than it says about the actual benefits associated with the NWMO’s proposal.

Environmental risk

One of the nuclear industry’s favourite promotional lines about deep geological repositories is that there is an “international consensus” about DGRs being the best option for containing nuclear fuel wastes. But it’s a consensus largely limited to the nuclear establishment, while the reality is that there is no approved and operating DGR for high level waste anywhere in the world, despite decades of effort and hundreds of millions of dollars spent in pursuit of an operating licence. These nuclear waste burial schemes create substantial risk—risk to the environment, and risk to human health—at each of the several steps between current storage and any eventual stashing of these hazardous materials deep underground.

Those risks will begin at the reactor site, when the waste must be transferred from the current storage systems into transportation casks. All of Canada’s commercial reactors are the CANDU design, where 18 months in the reactor core turns simple uranium into an extremely complex and highly radioactive mix of over 200 different radioactive ingredients. Twenty seconds exposure to a single fuel bundle would be lethal within 20 seconds. As a result, the fuel bundles are handled so there is no exposure to air. The bundles are moved underwater from the reactor core into the irradiated fuel bays. After a minimum of 10 years, dry storage containers are submerged for loading into that same pool that has been cooling and shielding the wastes until the temperature is low enough for transfer. The dry storage containers are then moved to on-site storage buildings.

However, the NWMO has been silent on how the transfers from the dry storage containers to the transportation containers (for shipment via road or rail) would be carried out, saying only that it’s up to the “waste owners.” Keep in mind that there has been no internal monitoring of the fuel bundles, and their condition after as long as several decades in dry storage is unknown. At this and later stages, defects in the fuel bundles is a significant concern, as the more damaged a fuel bundle is, the higher the radiation dose will be, potentially affecting both workers and the environment.

According to the NWMO’s conceptual transportation plans, the wastes will be shipped in two to three trucks per day for fifty years, in one of three potential containers. One, the “basket container” is still in the conceptual stage. The second potential container was designed for moving dry storage containers very short distances within the reactor stations. The third was designed by Ontario Hydro in the 1980s and subjected to limited and not wholly successful drop tests of a half-scale model before being certified by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. This third design has since been warehoused by Ontario Hydro (with its certification renewed by its replacement utility, Ontario Power Generation) before being taken over by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization. None of these transportation packages have been subject to full scale testing.

There are two sets of risks during transportation. During normal operations there will be low levels of radiation emanating from each shipment. The NWMO did calculations in 2012 and 2015 and concluded that the levels of radiation exposure will be “acceptable.” Yet radioactive exposure is a combination of dose, distance and duration, so if any of the variables are different than those NWMO plugged into their calculation, the risk factors change. The second set of risks during transportation are those that would result from an accident, particularly one where the container was breached.

When the waste arrives at the repository site it will again be transferred, this time from the transportation containers to the containers for underground placement. Those transfers will happen in a facility euphemistically named the “Used Fuel Packaging Plant,” employing a series of hot cells in which the waste bundles will be exposed to air for the first time since they were created in the reactor core. These transfers will be technically challenging and potentially highly contaminating.

During operations of the deep geological repository, water will become contaminated during the washing down of the nuclear waste transportation packages. Contaminated water will be pumped from the underground repository. Operations will also generate low and intermediate level wastes, both solid and liquid.

Once deposited underground, the nuclear waste itself will contaminate the deep groundwater in the near or long term and that contamination will eventually reach surface water in the vast watershed.

The NWMO’s candidate site in Northwestern Ontario is located half-way between Ignace and Dryden. Because it is at the height of land for the Wabigoon and the Turtle River systems, there are concerns about releases to the downstream communities, including Rainy River and Lake of the Woods. If and when the radioactive releases occur from the deep geological repository, there will be no means to reverse the impacts.

Decades of opposition

This is not the first nuclear waste repository proposed in Northwestern Ontario. In the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, Atomic Energy Canada Limited (AECL)—a federal Crown corporation focused on nuclear technology—was directed by the governments of Canada and Ontario to develop a repository for spent nuclear fuel. Northern Ontario, with its supposedly stable rock formations, was deemed ideal for a DGR.

However, public opposition repeatedly put a wrench into AECL’s plans. Many municipal and First Nations governments passed resolutions and issued statements opposing the disposal of nuclear waste in the region. In 1998 a federal environmental assessment panel concluded that AECL’s concept lacked public acceptance and had not been demonstrated “safe and acceptable.” The proposal was subsequently shelved, until the NWMO, which was established four years later, revived it, adopting an approach very similar to the previous AECL concept as the basis of its 2005 recommendation to the federal government.

The establishment of the NWMO did not quell Indigenous, municipal, and grassroots resistance to nuclear waste disposal…………………………………………………………………………………………………..

A number of grassroots groups opposed to the disposal of nuclear waste in Northern Ontario have emerged over the past decade, including No Nuclear Waste in Northwestern Ontario, the Sunset Country Spirit Alliance, and Nuclear Free Thunder Bay. These groups have united with other groups and individuals to form We The Nuclear Free North, an alliance of Indigenous and non-Indigenous people and groups dedicated to stopping the proposed DGR that includes the longstanding groups Environment North and Northwatch, who have decades of experience as critics of the nuclear industry’s various attempts to move radioactive wastes from southern to northern Ontario.

A new Indigenous-led anti nuclear group, called Niniibawtamin Anishinaabe Aki (“standing up for the land”), was established in 2023. With members from Treaty 3, Treaty 9, and Robinson Treaty territories, Niniibawtamin Anishinaabe Aki’s mission is to support grassroots Indigenous activists opposing the NWMO’s proposal.

Plebiscites and online polls

This groundswell of Indigenous and public opposition notwithstanding, the position of the municipalities and First Nations adjacent to the proposed DGR sites is less certain. Ignace and South Bruce have both signed hosting agreements with the NWMO, which commit both municipalities to decide whether or not they are “willing hosts” in the coming months. The City of Dryden has signed a series of “Significant Neighbouring” agreements with the NWMO that includes funding and confidentiality provisions, and is currently in the process of negotiating a Benefits Agreement.

In late April, Ignace held an online poll to gauge local support for the proposed DGR. South Bruce and Saugeen Ojibway Nation will hold formal plebiscites on the issue later this year.

The Municipality of Ignace’s approach to the proposed DGR has drawn significant criticism from some observers. n 2021 the Township Council passed a resolution that it would be Council who made the decision and there would not be a municipal referendum, such as South Bruce is holding. The online poll results (which have not been released to the public) are to be combined in a consultants’ report with findings from the consultants’ interviews, and will then be delivered to an “ad hoc willingness committee” appointed by the township council in February 2024. That committee will then make a recommendation to Council, and Council will make the decision. There’s a $500,000 signing bonus if they deliver a “willingness decision” by the end of June 2024. In contrast, the South Bruce referendum is not until October 28, 2024 and Saugeen Ojibway Nation leadership has recently been reported by the media as saying they are unlikely to make their decision before the end of the year.

Hosting agreements

In March 2024, the municipality of Ignace and the NWMO signed a controversial and divisive hosting agreement for the proposed DGR. If ratified through a declaration of willingness, the agreement would require the municipality to support the DGR in perpetuity. This includes supporting the NWMO’s proposal in all future regulatory processes, as well as attending meetings to speak in support of the proposal at the NWMO’s behest. Even if the scope and nature of the proposal changes significantly, the agreement would still require the municipality to support the DGR publicly and though all future regulatory processes.

The hosting agreement would also give the NWMO significant control over how the municipality communicates with its residents and participates in future regulatory processes regarding the DGR.

…………………………………….Ignace is thereby ceding an excessive degree of control to the NWMO for a rather paltry sum of money. The total payments to Ignace during the life of the project will amount to roughly $170 million…………………………………………

Towards a nuclear phase-out

The NWMO claims that it is solving Canada’s high-level nuclear waste problem by moving it into a DGR. Yet the most dangerous wastes—those that have been freshly removed from a reactor and are too hot to transport for at least a decade—will remain dispersed at reactor sites. What’s more, the nuclear industry hopes to expand rapidly by siting new small modular reactors across Canada, including in remote and rural regions, further dispersing nuclear waste.

The only way to truly solve Canada’s problem with radioactive waste, however, is to stop making more of it. In other words, we need to phase out nuclear power.

………………………………………………Indigenous communities have always been at the forefront of struggles against the nuclear industry on Turtle Island. The current battles against nuclear waste disposal in northwestern Ontario are no different. If Canada is to have a just transition away from fossil fuels, then it cannot be based on nuclear power.

Warren Bernauer is a non-Indigenous member of Niniibawtamin Anishinaabe Aki and research associate at the University of Manitoba where he conducts research into energy transitions and social justice in the North.

Laura Tanguay is a doctoral candidate at York University researching the politics of nuclear waste in Ontario

Brennain Lloyd is project coordinator for Northwatch and member of We The Nuclear Free North. 

Elysia Petrone is a lawyer and activist from Fort William First Nation and a member of Niniibawtamin Anishinaabe Aki.  https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/nuclear-waste-in-northwestern-ontario

July 12, 2024 Posted by | Canada, opposition to nuclear | 1 Comment

A vigil behind bars: pair who protested US nuclear bombs in Germany serving time

The judges and prosecutors, as well as the guards in prison, treat us respectfully and politely while at the same time sticking to laws and rules that are unjust and cause suffering. The biggest crime in their eyes is to upset the “order”, even though the order is set up to be criminal. 

By Susan Crane and Susan van der Hijden , 29 June 24  https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/06/30/a-vigil-behind-bars/

Here in Rohrbach prison we are awakened by the sounds of doves and other birds, giving the illusion that all is well in the world, until other sounds, keys rattling, doors being shut, and guards doing the morning body check, bring us back to reality.

We are sitting in a prison cell, 123 km from Büchel Air Force Base, where more than 20 U.S. nuclear bombs are deployed. 

At the moment, the runway at Büchel is being rebuilt to accommodate the new F-35 fighter jets that will carry the new B61-12 nuclear bombs that were designed and built in the U.S. 

The planning, preparation, possession, deployment, threat or use of these B61-bombs is illegal and criminal. The U.S., Germany and NATO know that each B61 nuclear bomb would inflict unnecessary suffering and casualties on combatants and civilians and induce cancers, keloid growth and leukemia in large numbers, inflict congenital deformities in unborn children and poison food supplies.

“We have no right to obey,” says Hannah Arendt. 

Although our actions might seem futile, we understand that it is our right, duty and responsibility to stand against the planning and preparation for the use of these weapons. They are illegal under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which both Germany and the U.S. have signed and ratified, and under the the Hague Convention, the Geneva Convention and the Nuremberg Charter.

During the international peace camps in Büchel (organized by the G.A.A.A. which consists of, among others, IPPNW, ICAN and DFG-VK; the German War Resisters League), we, together with other war resisters, and with the help of many supporters, went onto Büchel Air Force Base to communicate with the military personnel about the illegality and immorality of the nuclear bombs. We also wanted to withdraw our consent and complicity to their use.

The judges who sentenced us for these actions made a decision to follow some laws and ignore others. It is common sense, and we all know, that even the law against trespass can be broken when life is endangered.

The judges and prosecutors, as well as the guards in prison, treat us respectfully and politely while at the same time sticking to laws and rules that are unjust and cause suffering. The biggest crime in their eyes is to upset the “order”, even though the order is set up to be criminal. 

We wake up every day with determined joy to continue our “vigil behind bars”. A joy constrained by knowing that the other women here have pain, from being separated from their family and children or from constant physical or psychological difficulties or from being locked in a cell all day with nothing to do. 

We are only able to “vigil behind bars” through the immense support of people making sure our Catholic Worker houses can continue, people sending us cards and stamps, organizing visits and money for phone calls, remembering us in their prayers, doing press work and those that continue fighting the death dealing war-makers in the world. 

Susan Crane is serving a 229 day sentence, and Susan van der Hijden a 115 day sentence, for their nonviolent nuclear disarmament actions at Büchel air base. You can write cards and letters to them, individually addressed to each at JVA Rohrbach, Peter-Caesar-Allee 1, 55597 Wöllstein, Germany. Updates can be found here. 

July 1, 2024 Posted by | Germany, Legal, opposition to nuclear | Leave a comment

Uranium and the Grand Canyon – A Call to Close and Cleanup the Pinyon Plains Uranium Mine

 http://nuclearactive.org/ 27 June 24
A recent mapping project by Stanford University shows about 23,000 abandoned uranium mines across the country.  One must question beginning a new round of uranium mining when closure and cleanup of previous mining efforts have not been done.  As a result, water continues to be contaminated.

June 27th, 2024 

One of the most beautiful and majestic sights is found by looking across and down into the Grand Canyon at the spread of the red walls, the patches of green and the glorious Colorado River.  All of this is threatened by an exemption from a federal law banning uranium mining in the watershed that feeds the complex river system.  Uranium mining is allowed on U.S. Forest Service lands where the Pinyon Plains Uranium Mine is located less than ten miles from the Grand Canyon’s south rim.  https://www.grandcanyontrust.org/grand-canyon-uranium  

In December 2023, the Pinyon Plains Uranium Mine, formerly called the Canyon Mine, began mining operations.  The owner of the mine, Energy Fuels Inc., plans to begin transporting extracted uranium 300 miles across the Navajo Nation to the corporation’s White Mesa Uranium Mill in southeast Utah.  https://www.grandcanyontrust.org/white-mesa-uranium-mill and https://www.energyfuels.com/

Tribes and others in this large area know little about the corporation’s plans for transporting the dangerous materials.  The federal and state agencies have done little, or none, of the required consultation with the tribes and communities about the transportation plans.  The corporation has brought the threat of harm while ignoring its responsibilities to consult with those who want to keep their families safe.  See links to the Uranium and the Grand Canyon panel conversation below.

The Navajo Nation passed a law against the transport of uranium across its lands. https://opvp.navajo-nsn.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/President-Nygren-signs-uranium-legislation-for-April-30.pdf  It is unknown what the Nation will do when the first load leaves the mine.

It is irresponsible to mine, let alone transport uranium ore through the Grand Canyon Watershed when we have already experienced the harm done to all living beings by decades of uranium mining.

A recent mapping project by Stanford University shows about 23,000 abandoned uranium mines across the country.  One must question beginning a new round of uranium mining when closure and cleanup of previous mining efforts have not been done.  As a result, water continues to be contaminated.

New groundwater scientific studies reveal what Peoples living in and around the Grand Canyon know:  that the high interconnectivity of the groundwater systems makes uranium mining not only risky, but extremely risky.  https://www.grandcanyontrust.org/blog/uranium-mining-near-grand-canyon-too-risky-research-shows and https://www.grandcanyontrust.org/blog/flooding-uranium-mine-near-grand-canyon-tops-66-million-gallons

To learn more, watch the June 27, 2024 Uranium and the Grand Canyon  panel conversation with a tribal leader, a health professional, an activist, and a former uranium miner.  https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-iba-3&ei=UTF-8&hsimp=yhs-3&hspart=iba&p=kjzz+news&type=teff_10019_FFW_ZZ#id=3&vid=9775763ef083421924a855a8b7311be1

Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren provided an opening message. https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-iba-3&ei=UTF-8&hsimp=yhs-3&hspart=iba&p=kjzz+news&type=teff_10019_FFW_ZZ#id=2&vid=9d88817057e55e3bb6c9803bc3b59c88&action=click

Gabriel Pietrorazio, of KJZZ News, hosted the event.  He is a national award-winning tribal natural resources reporter.  Pietrorazio’s most recent article about these issues:  https://www.kjzz.org/news/2024-06-27/inside-pinyon-plain-mine-the-grand-canyon-uranium-dispute-from-two-points-of-view

Take action by going to the Grand Canyon Trust website to sign the petition to close and clean up the Canyon Mine, which was recently renamed the Pinyon Plains Uranium Mine.  https://www.grandcanyontrust.org/take-action

June 30, 2024 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, USA | Leave a comment

Kenya’s first nuclear plant: why plans face fierce opposition in country’s coastal paradise

Unease and anger are rising over proposals to build country’s first facility on Kilifi coast, home to white sand beaches, coral reefs and mangrove swamps

Guardian, By Caroline Kimeu in Kilifi, 17 June 24

Kilifi County’s white sandy beaches have made it one of Kenya’s most popular tourist destinations. Hotels and beach bars line the 165 mile-long (265km) coast; fishers supply the district’s restaurants with fresh seafood; and visitors spend their days boating, snorkelling around coral reefs or bird watching in dense mangrove forests.

Soon, this idyllic coastline will host Kenya’s first nuclear plant, as the country, like its east African neighbour Uganda, pushes forward with atomic energy plans.

The proposals have sparked fierce opposition in Kilifi. In a building by Mida Creek, a swampy bayou known for its birdlife and mangrove forests, more than a dozen conservation and rights groups meet regularly to discuss the proposed plant.

“Kana nuclear!” Phyllis Omido, an award-winning environmentalist who is leading the protests, tells one such meeting. The Swahili slogan means “reject nuclear”, and encompasses the acronym for the Kenya Anti-Nuclear Alliance who say the plant will deepen Kenya’s debt and are calling for broader public awareness of the cost. Construction on the power station is expected to start in 2027, with it due to be operational in 2034.

“It is the worst economic decision we could make for our country,” says Omido, who began her campaign last year.

A lawsuit filed in the environmental court by lawyers Collins Sang and Cecilia Ndeti in July 2023 on behalf of Kilifi residents, seeks to stop the plant, arguing that the process has been “rushed” and was “illegal”, and that public participation meetings were “clandestine”. They argue the Nuclear Power and Energy Agency (Nupea) should not proceed with fixing any site for the plant before laws and adequate safeguards are in place. Nupea said construction would not begin for years, that laws were under discussion and that adequate public participation was being carried out. Hearings are continuing to take place.

In November, people in Kilifi filed a petition with parliament calling for an inquiry. The petition, sponsored by the Centre for Justice Governance and Environmental Action (CJGEA), a non-profit founded by Omido in 2009, also claimed that locals had limited information on the proposed plant and the criteria for selecting preferred sites. It raised concerns over the risks to health, the environment and tourism in the event of a nuclear spill, saying the country was undertaking a “high-risk venture” without proper legal and disaster response measures in place. The petition also flagged concerns over security and the handling of radioactive waste in a nation prone to floods and drought. The senate suspended the inquiry until the lawsuit was heard.

………………..Peter Musila, a marine scientist who monitors the impacts of global heating on coral reefs, fears that a nuclear power station will threaten aquatic life. The coral cover in Watamu marine national reserve, a protected area near Kilifi’s coast, has improved over the last decade and Musila fears progress could be reversed by thermal pollution from the plant, whose cooling system would suck large amounts of water from the ocean and return it a few degrees warmer, potentially killing fish and the micro-organisms such as plankton, which are essential for a thriving aquatic ecosystem

It’s terrifying,” says Musila, who works with the conservation organisation A Rocha Kenya. “It could wreak havoc.”

At Mida, those making a living from the land and sea, including workers in tourism, fishers and several dozen beekeeping groups and butterfly farmers around Arabuko-Sokoke Forest, have concerns about their futures. The forest is a Unesco biosphere reserve.

Justin Kenga, 51, a tour operator from the town of Watamu, who has worked in the industry for decades, says: “In tourism, we depend on the biodiversity around us – our tourists are very conscious about the environment – so anything that can alter or destruct our environment, it will destroy our livelihoods.”…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……..tensions between anti-nuclear activists and the government are growing. The UN special rapporteur on human rights defenders, Mary Lawlor, expressed concern over police violence against people in Uyombo, a potential plant site, during a protest in April. Activists said their peaceful protest was met with excessive violence, beatings, arrests and intimidation……………………………………….  https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/article/2024/jun/17/kenya-plans-first-nuclear-power-plant-kilifi-opposition-activists

June 18, 2024 Posted by | AFRICA, opposition to nuclear | Leave a comment

MSP’s claim of support for nuclear power in Highlands challenged

 By John Davidson ,  john.davidson@hnmedia.co.u, 09 June 2024  https://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/news/msp-s-claim-of-support-for-nuclear-power-in-highlands-challe-352590/

An anti-nuclear campaigner has hit out at a claim made by Highland MSP Edward Mountain that people in the region want nuclear power.

The Conservative MSP hosted an energy summit in Strathpeffer last Friday, bringing together industry experts and members of the public.

The aim was to discuss the future of energy production and provision in the Highlands, with panellists including representatives from SSEN, Storegga, Highland Fuels, Highland Renewables, and the Anaerobic Digestion and Bioresources Association.

More than 70 people attended the Let’s Talk Energy Summit at Strathpeffer Pavilion.

Mr Mountain, who convenes the Scottish parliament’s Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, said that these contributors would be useful to inform his work at Holyrood.

He said that people at the summit wanted to see a mixture of different energy systems, including nuclear, rather than just renewables.

“I was excited to host this well-attended event in Strathpeffer alongside an experienced panel of five industry professionals where we discussed the many complexities of renewable energy,” Mr Mountain said.

“I was interested to note the near-unanimous support for nuclear energy throughout the audience as part of our energy mix in the Highlands, and I feel that we ought to look at developing our power closer to where it is going to be used.

“People in the Highlands understand better than anyone the need for different energy sources, as well as energy security.

“However, these communities won’t be walked over when it comes to infrastructure, and big companies need to understand that they must be honest about what they are planning in the medium and long-term.”

Tor Justad, chairperson of Highlands Against Nuclear Power (HANP), challenged the assertion that the support for nuclear at the summit reflected public opinion.

He said: “In a recent survey, 62 per cent of the Scottish population supported renewable energy over nuclear.

“There may have been ‘near unanimous’ support from a handful of organisations and public at the ‘Energy Summit’ held in Strathpeffer recently, but presumably they weren’t provided with any downsides to nuclear.

“If HANP had been invited we could have provided a long list of reasons why nuclear has no place either in energy production or reaching a net zero target.

“A few of these include cost – as producing electricity through nuclear is three times as expensive as renewables; and the risks at all stages, including decommissioning, as we know from radioactive particles on shores near Dounreay, sodium tank leaks and previous accidents involving the shaft and silo.

“Nuclear is not clean as uranium has to be mined and there are massive carbon emissions during the average 13-year construction period of a nuclear plant.

“So the claim that Highlanders want nuclear power has no basis in fact and any support is likely to come from nuclear employees at Dounreay and their supporters, where it is claimed that the clean-up will take another 40 years at a cost to taxpayers of a staggering £8.7 billion – so not much chance of cheaper electricity any time soon.

“HANP will continue to actively oppose any new nuclear proposals for the Highlands, any part of Scotland and in other parts of the UK together with fellow NGO’s opposed to new nuclear.”

June 12, 2024 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, UK | Leave a comment

Protest continues against Japan’s further discharge of nuke-contaminated water

By Jiang Xueqing in Tokyo  https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202405/26/WS66531eb9a31082fc043c9296.html
2024-05-26

Japanese people continued to strongly oppose the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water from the wrecked Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the ocean during the latest round of radioactive water release.

Tokyo Electric Power Company, the operator of the Fukushima plant, started the sixth round of releasing nuclear-contaminated water into the sea on May 17. The company said it plans to discharge approximately 7,800 metric tons of radioactive water through June 4.

During a rally in front of the Prime Minister of Japan’s office in Tokyo on Friday, Kem Komdo, a 61-year-old Tokyo resident, said the discharge of nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean has no benefits at all, and the main risk is marine pollution.

Although Japanese media is promoting that the water treated through the Advanced Liquid Processing System, or ALPS, only contains tritium, Komdo said that is not true. He emphasized that the radioactive water contains various hidden contaminants that have come into contact with fuel debris, so the actual situation must be made clear.

“The (Japanese) government and TEPCO always tell the media to call it ‘ALPS-treated water’, not nuclear-contaminated water, saying that calling it nuclear-contaminated water causes harmful rumors. But that statement is clearly wrong because this is indeed contaminated water,” Komdo said. “By forcing us to call it ‘ALPS-treated water,’ TEPCO and the government are trying to evade responsibility for the Fukushima nuclear accident.”

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant suffered a triple meltdown following a major earthquake and subsequent tsunami on March 11, 2011.

Komdo said the Japanese government should change its policy to avoid discharging nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean and immediately switch to land storage as there is still space available.

“Otherwise, the government won’t gain the trust of China and other Pacific island countries, and it will also affect other diplomatic relations,” he said.

May 30, 2024 Posted by | Japan, opposition to nuclear | Leave a comment

Nuclear-free councils hit out at ‘mad delusion’ of new reactor

By Alan Hendry – alan.hendry@hnmedia.co.uk, 25 May 2024

Calls for a nuclear revival in Scotland – including the possibility of a new Dounreay reactor – have been dismissed as “folly” and a “mad delusion”.

Scottish Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLAs), a grouping of councils opposed to civil nuclear power, insisted that renewables “represent the only way forward to achieve a sustainable, net-zero future”.

The secretary of state for Scotland, Alister Jack, confirmed last week that he had asked the UK energy minister to plan for a new nuclear site north of the border as part of a nationwide strategy.

Dounreay had been put forward among the possible locations for a small modular reactor (SMR), a series of 10 power stations that engineering giant Rolls-Royce was planning to build by 2035.

Jamie Stone, the Liberal Democrat MP for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, was quick to press the case for Dounreay to be considered. After a conversation with the Scottish secretary, Mr Stone claimed there was “all to play for”.

Ross-shire Journal 25th May 2024

https://www.ross-shirejournal.co.uk/news/nuclear-free-councils-hit-out-at-mad-delusion-of-new-react-351494/

May 27, 2024 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLAs) join Stop Sizewell in urging 120 local authorities not to back Sizewell C

The UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities have joined campaigners at Stop Sizewell in writing to pension fund administrators providing benefits to members in at least 120 UK local authorities urging them not to finance the Sizewell C nuclear power plant project in Suffolk.

In recent months, Government ministers and EDF have been busy courting pension funds seeking private sector finance. UK taxpayers have already been unwittingly forced to stump up £2.5 billion in pledges made by the government to kick start preparatory works on the site, but government will need billions more to commence construction.

The estimated cost of completing Sizewell C’s sister plant Hinkley Point C in Somerset could be as high as £46 billion, and civil nuclear projects are notorious for being delivered late and hugely over budget.

Now NFLA Secretary Richard Outram has joined Stop Sizewell Executive Director Alison Downes in writing to Council pension funds urging them to invest in renewables instead of nuclear, particularly in light of the many resolutions passed by Councils to take urgent action to tackle climate change.

Stop Sizewell have also prepared an excellent briefing outlining why backing Sizewell C would be a bad investment:

https://stopsizewellc.org/core/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Sizewell-C-and-Risk_-Briefing-for-investors-updated-May-2024.pdf.

……………………………………………..more https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/nflas-join-stop-sizewell-in-urging-120-local-authorities-not-to-back-sizewell-c/

May 26, 2024 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear-free councils hit out at ‘mad delusion’ of new reactor

“Instead of wasting cash and time on nuclear, the Scottish NFLAs believe the money and effort would first be far better spent insulating all domestic properties and public buildings to the highest standard to improve energy efficiency, reduce energy consumption and minimise or eliminate fuel poverty, as well as investing in more renewable energy generating capacity and battery storage.”

“

 By Alan Hendry  alan.hendry@hnmedia.co.uk, 21 May 2024,   https://www.northern-times.co.uk/news/nuclear-free-councils-hit-out-at-mad-delusion-of-new-react-351234/

Calls for a nuclear revival in Scotland – including the possibility of a new Dounreay reactor – have been dismissed as “folly” and a “mad delusion”.

Scottish Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLAs), a grouping of councils opposed to civil nuclear power, insisted that renewables “represent the only way forward to achieve a sustainable, net-zero future”.

The secretary of state for Scotland, Alister Jack, confirmed last week that he had asked the UK energy minister to plan for a new nuclear site north of the border as part of a nationwide strategy.

Dounreay had been put forward among the possible locations for a small modular reactor (SMR), a series of 10 power stations that engineering giant Rolls-Royce was planning to build by 2035.

Jamie Stone, the Liberal Democrat MP for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, was quick to press the case for Dounreay to be considered. After a conversation with the Scottish secretary, Mr Stone claimed there was “all to play for”.

Dounreay is being decommissioned, with the end date for the nuclear clean-up now extended to the 2070s.

A proposal that Highland Council should sign up to NFLAs came to nothing in 2019 after some Caithness councillors condemned the idea. Scottish councils that are part of NFLAs are Dundee, East Ayrshire, Edinburgh, Fife, Glasgow, Midlothian, North Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, Shetland Islands, West Dunbartonshire and Western Isles.

In a statement, Scottish NFLAs said a new focus on nuclear generation would put the UK government at odds with the Scottish Government as the SNP remains “implacably opposed” to the construction of any new nuclear fission plants in Scotland.

“To the NFLAs, an investment in any nuclear would not only be folly, but a lamentable diversion of effort from achieving the credible goal of supplying 100 per cent of Scotland’s electricity from renewables,” the group said.

“Nuclear power plants are enormously expensive to build and notorious for their cost and delivery overruns.”

Scottish NFLAs maintained that “none of the competing SMR designs has yet received the required approvals from the nuclear regulator to even be deployed in the UK” and “the necessary finance has yet to be put in place”.

It went on: “SMRs are estimated to cost £3 billion each, but cost overruns are notorious in the nuclear industry, and the earliest any approved and financed SMR would come onstream would be in the early 2030s.

“Nuclear plants are also incredibly expensive to decommission, and the resultant radioactive waste must be managed at vast expense for millennia.

“Instead of wasting cash and time on nuclear, the Scottish NFLAs believe the money and effort would first be far better spent insulating all domestic properties and public buildings to the highest standard to improve energy efficiency, reduce energy consumption and minimise or eliminate fuel poverty, as well as investing in more renewable energy generating capacity and battery storage.”

Scottish NFLAs said Scotland could become “a powerhouse” with surplus renewable energy being exported to England and continental Europe via interconnectors.

It added: “To realise this, the Scottish NFLAs would like to see the Scottish Government recommit to establishing a state-owned renewable energy company to invest in this potential and to generate an income for the nation.

“The Scottish NFLAs believe that if the secretary of state for Scotland genuinely wants to see a sustainable, net-zero future for Scotland he should call for the British government to get behind the Scottish Government in backing this strategy, instead of maintaining his mad delusion for nuclear.”

May 23, 2024 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Together Against Sizewell C vows to continue fight after legal challenge rejected by Supreme Court – as the nuclear plant welcomes the news

 By Ash Jones ,  ash.jones@iliffepublishing.co.uk, 14 May 2024  https://www.suffolknews.co.uk/southwold/sizewell-c-campaigners-vow-to-continue-fight-after-supreme-c-9365930/

Campaigners protesting against the £20 billion Sizewell C plant are determined to continue their fight after a legal challenge was rejected by the Supreme Court.

The court yesterday refused an appeal by Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) after it called for a judicial review of the plant, near Leiston.

TASC first challenged the Government’s decision to give planning permission to the station in July 2022 after it was given the go-ahead by then-business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng.

Among its claims were that the Secretary of State was wrong to grant a Development Consent Order (DCO) without first assessing the environmental impact of proposals for Sizewell C’s water supply.

In its ruling, three Supreme Court judges said the group’s latest claims did not raise an arguable point of law.

Julia Pyke, the managing director of Sizewell C, welcomed the news and said the team were glad the challenge was rejected by the court.

However, Pete Wilkinson, from TASC, said the group would seek new avenues to challenge the plant.

Mr Wilkinson described yesterday’s ruling as a ‘bit of a blow’ but said the site still needed other permits and licences.

He said it was a challenge opposing Sizewell C through the courts and the Government seemed to have decided the plant will go through regardless.

“Local opposition to the plant appears to be growing as people in the area realise the imposition it will cause,” he said.

“There are about 36 site conditions that cover the site that we’ll be able to monitor, there are no details on water supply and a many-billion pound hole in finances as well as further licences to be awarded.

There are things that lend themselves to a possible challenge to give the public a chance to review.”

This followed TASC’s case being refused by the High Court last year – the decision to approve plant was also upheld by the Court of Appeal in December.

During the High Court case, the body argued against the impacts of water supply of up to two million litres per day, which it said were never assessed and that there was no way of knowing if the environmental benefits of the plant would outweigh the costs.

In addition, no opening date for the plant could be guaranteed, campaigners said.

Ms Pyke said the team knew the majority of East Suffolk residents supported the project and looked forward to the jobs and development opportunities it would bring.

She added: “We will continue to listen closely to local communities and we are as determined as ever to ensure that Sizewell C delivers for them.”

May 17, 2024 Posted by | opposition to nuclear, UK | Leave a comment

Indonesia civil society groups raise concerns over proposed Borneo nuclear reactor

by Irfan Maulana on 14 May 2024,  https://news.mongabay.com/2024/05/indonesia-civil-society-groups-raise-concerns-over-proposed-borneo-nuclear-reactor/

  • Indonesia’s largest environmental advocacy group, Walhi, staged demonstrations in Jakarta and West Kalimantan province to raise awareness about a proposed nuclear power plant in West Kalimantan’s Bengkayang district.
  • In 2021, a U.S. agency signed a partnership agreement with Indonesia’s state-owned power utility to explore possibilities for a reactor in the province. Survey work is currently being conducted to determine the project’s viability and safety.
  • Some environmental groups have questioned the merit of the plan on safety grounds and the availability of alternative renewable sources.

JAKARTA — Civil society organizations in Indonesia staged protests in late April to raise awareness of a planned nuclear plant near Pontianak, capital of West Kalimantan province on the island of Borneo.

“We are advocating that West Kalimantan be kept away from the threat of a nuclear radiation disaster. Indonesia is not Chernobyl,” said Hendrikus Adam, executive director of the West Kalimantan chapter of the Indonesia Forum for the Environment, a national NGO known as Walhi, referring to the site of a notorious 1986 nuclear meltdown in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.

Indonesia’s first experimental nuclear reactor, the TRIGA Mark II, opened in the city of Bandung in February 1965. Since then, however, the world’s fourth-largest country has yet to open a full-fledged nuclear power station.

In March 2023, Indonesia and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) signed a partnership agreement to develop small modular reactor technology for the archipelago’s power network. The agreement included a $1 million grant to PLN, the state-owned power utility, to carry out feasibility studies on a nuclear reactor.

PLN has proposed a 462-megawatt facility in West Kalimantan, which would use technology supplied by NuScale Power OVS, a publicly traded company based in Oregon in the U.S.

In capacity terms, that represents almost one-tenth of the giant Paiton coal-fired complex in East Java province, a mainstay of the Java-Bali power grid.

NuScale says the modular design of its technology has additional resilience to earthquakes — a significant consideration for civil engineering projects in Indonesia, one of the most seismically active countries in the world.

However, the technology encountered controversy after John Ma, a senior structural engineer with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), questioned the commission’s approval of the design’s earthquake resistance. That “differing professional opinion” was subsequently dismissed on review.

In 2021, Indonesia’s national research agency, known as BRIN, carried out a seismic study on a prospective site in the West Kalimantan district of Bengkayang.

That early work is part of research under the internationally agreed Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment, which is recommended by the International Atomic Energy Agency as part of its safety regimen.

Risk assessment

At Walhi’s demonstration on April 26 in Jakarta, volunteers with the environmental group unfurled banners stating “Indonesia is not Chernobyl.” Lessons from the Chernobyl incident, as well as the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant meltdown in Japan — the latter triggered by an earthquake — inform much of the civil society campaign in Indonesia.

“The number of human and environmental tragedies shows that human-created technology such as nuclear power plants cannot be completely controlled,” Adam said.

He also questioned the government’s choice of Indonesian Borneo, known locally as Kalimantan, on the basis that it isn’t as seismically active as islands like Java, Sumatra and Sulawesi.

“The assumption that Kalimantan is safe from this disaster is of course not true,” Adam said. “Kalimantan has earthquake sources, such as the Meratus Fault, Mangkabayar Fault, Tarakan Fault, Sampurna Fault and Paternoster Fault.”

Walhi also pointed to slow uptake of solar and other renewable energy sources in Indonesia, which haven’t received the kinds of subsidies seen in other countries transitioning to clean energy.

“We have so many choices for energy transition, why do we have to choose technology that is actually dangerous?” said Fanny Tri Jamboree Christianto, Walhi’s energy campaign lead.

May 15, 2024 Posted by | Indonesia, opposition to nuclear | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »