nuclear-news

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

Russia said on Wednesday it stood ready to remove highly enriched uranium from Iran.

 Russia said on Wednesday it stood ready to remove highly enriched uranium
from Iran and convert it into civilian reactor fuel as a potential way to
help narrow U.S.-Iranian differences over the Islamic Republic’s nuclear
programme. Tehran says it has the right to peaceful nuclear power, but its
swiftly-advancing uranium enrichment programme has raised fears in the
wider West and across the Gulf that it wants to develop a nuclear weapon.

 Reuters 11th June 2025, https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-it-is-ready-remove-excess-nuclear-materials-iran-2025-06-11/

June 14, 2025 Posted by | Iran, Russia, Uranium | Leave a comment

Revealed: three tonnes of uranium legally dumped in protected English estuary in nine years

Expert raises concerns over quantities allowed to be discharged from nuclear fuel factory near Preston

Pippa Neill, Fri 23 May 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/may/22/revealed-uranium-from-uk-nuclear-fuel-factory-dumped-into-protected-ribble-estuary?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other&fbclid=IwY2xjawK1jcVleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETFUZDhsb3M1VVowc2dTaDRHAR6Vqo96u_ivfBV3vr67Soko2rokhP5vh14xCyKYjSkJPujsuqqLdfJSFKjYCw_aem_WlsFzhgy4_Rme1y0tyreVg

The Environment Agency has allowed a firm to dump three tonnes of uranium into one of England’s most protected sites over the past nine years, it can be revealed, with experts sounding alarm over the potential environmental impact of these discharges.

Documents obtained by the Guardian and the Ends Report through freedom of information requests show that a nuclear fuel factory near Preston discharged large quantities of uranium – legally, under its environmental permit conditions – into the River Ribble between 2015 and 2024. The discharges peaked in 2015 when 703kg of uranium was discharged, according to the documents.

Raw uranium rock mined from all over the world is brought to the Springfields Fuels factory in Lea Town, a small village roughly five miles from Preston, where the rock is treated and purified to create uranium fuel rods.

According to the factory’s website, it has supplied several million fuel elements to reactors in 11 different countries.

The discharge point for the uranium releases is located within the Ribble estuary marine conservation zone – and about 800m upstream of the Ribble estuary, which is one of the most protected sites in the country, classified as a site of special scientific interest, a special protection area (SPA) and a Ramsar site (a wetland designated as being of international importance).

The government’s latest Radioactivity in Food and the Environment report, published in November 2024, notes that in 2023 the total dose of radiation from Springfields Fuels was approximately 4% of the dose limit that is set to protect members of the public from radiation.

However, Dr Ian Fairlile, an independent consultant on radioactivity in the environment, who was a scientific secretary to the UK government’s committee examining radiation risks of internal emitters, said that in terms of radioactivity, the discharges from Springfields Fuels were a “very large amount”.

“I’m concerned at this high level. It’s worrying”, he said, referring specifically to the 2015 discharge.

In a 2009 assessment, the Environment Agency concluded that the total dose rate of radioactivity for the Ribble and Alt estuaries SPA was “significantly in excess” of the agreed threshold of 40 microgray/h, below which regulators have agreed there would be no adverse effect to the integrity of a protected site. The report found the calculated total dose rate for the worst affected organism in the estuary was more than 10 times higher than this threshold, with discharges of radionuclides from the Springfields Fuels site to blame.

As a result, a more detailed assessment was undertaken. In this latter report, it was concluded that based on new permitted discharge limits, which had been lowered due to planned operational changes at Springfields Fuels, the dose rates to wildlife were below the agreed threshold and therefore there was no adverse effect on the integrity of the protected site.

Under the site’s current environmental permit, there is no limit on the weight of uranium discharges, which in itself has raised eyebrows. Instead, the uranium discharge is limited in terms of its radioactivity, with an annual limit of 0.04 terabecquerels. Prior to this, the discharge limit in terms of radioactivity was 0.1 terabecquerels.

A terabecquerel is a unit of radioactivity equal to 1tn becquerels. One becquerel represents a rate of radioactive decay equal to one radioactive decay per second.

Despite this tighter limit having been agreed six years ago, experts have raised concerns over the continued authorised discharges from the site.

Fairlile specifically questioned the Environment Agency’s modelling of how this discharge level could be classified as safe. “This is a very high level. The Environment Agency’s risk modelling might be unreliable. Which would make its discharge limits unsafe”, he said.

The Environment Agency said its processes for assessing impacts to habitats were “robust and follow international best practice, including the use of a tiered assessment approach”.

Dr Patrick Byrne, a reader in hydrology and environmental pollution at Liverpool John Moores University, said the 703kg of uranium discharged in 2015 was an “exceptionally high volume”

Dr Doug Parr, a policy director at Greenpeace UK, said: “Discharges of heavy metals into the environment are never good, especially when those metals are radioactive.”

An Environment Agency spokesperson declined to comment directly, but the regulator said it set “strict environmental permit conditions for all nuclear operators in England, including Springfields Fuels Limited”.

It said these permits were based on “detailed technical assessments and are designed to ensure that any discharges of radioactive substances, including uranium, do not pose an unacceptable risk to people or the environment”.

While the government’s Radioactivity in Food and the Environment report found sources of radiation from Springfield Fuels were approximately 4% of the dose limit to members of the public, it also concluded that radionuclides – specifically isotopes of uranium – were detected downstream in sediment and biota in the Ribble estuary due to discharges from Springfields.

This is not the first time uranium levels in the estuary silt have been noted. Research conducted by the British Geological Survey (BGS) in 2002 detected “anomalously high” concentrations of uranium in a silt sample downstream of the Springfields facility.

The highest level recorded in the BGS report was 60μg/g of uranium in the silt – compared with a background level of 3-4μg/g. The researchers described this as a “significant anomaly”.

The UK is looking to expand its nuclear fuel production capabilities, including at Springfields Fuels. This is in order to increase energy security and reduce reliance on Russian fuel, and to deliver on a target of 24GW of new nuclear capacity by 2050.

A spokesperson from Westinghouse Electric Company UK, the operator of the factory), said: “Springfields is committed to strong environmental stewardship in our Lancashire community. The plant is monitored and regulated by the Environment Agency and operates well within those regulations. For nearly the past 80 years, Springfields has provided high-quality jobs to the local community and the fuel we provide to the UK’s nuclear power plants has avoided billions of tonnes of CO2 from fossil fuels.”

An Environment Agency spokesperson said: “The Environment Agency strictly regulates Springfields Fuels through robust environmental permits that control radioactive discharges, ensuring they pose no unacceptable risk to people or the environment. These permits are based on international best practice and are routinely reviewed, including detailed habitat assessments. Discharge limits have been progressively reduced over time, and monitoring by both the operator and the Environment Agency confirms no cause for concern.

June 12, 2025 Posted by | environment, Uranium | Leave a comment

Revealed: three tonnes of uranium legally dumped in protected English estuary in nine years

Expert raises concerns over quantities allowed to be discharged from nuclear fuel factory near Preston

Pippa Neill, 23 May 2025 , https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/may/22/revealed-uranium-from-uk-nuclear-fuel-factory-dumped-into-protected-ribble-estuary

The Environment Agency has allowed a firm to dump three tonnes of uranium into one of England’s most protected sites over the past nine years, it can be revealed, with experts sounding alarm over the potential environmental impact of these discharges.

Documents obtained by the Guardian and the Ends Report through freedom of information requests show that a nuclear fuel factory near Preston discharged large quantities of uranium – legally, under its environmental permit conditions – into the River Ribble between 2015 and 2024. The discharges peaked in 2015 when 703kg of uranium was discharged, according to the documents.

Raw uranium rock mined from all over the world is brought to the Springfields Fuels factory in Lea Town, a small village roughly five miles from Preston, where the rock is treated and purified to create uranium fuel rods.

According to the factory’s website, it has supplied several million fuel elements to reactors in 11 different countries.

The discharge point for the uranium releases is located within the Ribble estuary marine conservation zone – and about 800m upstream of the Ribble estuary, which is one of the most protected sites in the country, classified as a site of special scientific interest, a special protection area (SPA) and a Ramsar site (a wetland designated as being of international importance).

The government’s latest Radioactivity in Food and the Environment report, published in November 2024, notes that in 2023 the total dose of radiation from Springfields Fuels was approximately 4% of the dose limit that is set to protect members of the public from radiation.

However, Dr Ian Fairlie, an independent consultant on radioactivity in the environment, who was a scientific secretary to the UK government’s committee examining radiation risks of internal emitters, said that in terms of radioactivity, the discharges from Springfields Fuels were a “very large amount”.

“I’m concerned at this high level. It’s worrying”, he said, referring specifically to the 2015 discharge.

In a 2009 assessment, the Environment Agency concluded that the total dose rate of radioactivity for the Ribble and Alt estuaries SPA was “significantly in excess” of the agreed threshold of 40 microgray/h, below which regulators have agreed there would be no adverse effect to the integrity of a protected site. The report found the calculated total dose rate for the worst affected organism in the estuary was more than 10 times higher than this threshold, with discharges of radionuclides from the Springfields Fuels site to blame.

As a result, a more detailed assessment was undertaken. In this latter report, it was concluded that based on new permitted discharge limits, which had been lowered due to planned operational changes at Springfields Fuels, the dose rates to wildlife were below the agreed threshold and therefore there was no adverse effect on the integrity of the protected site.

Under the site’s current environmental permit, there is no limit on the weight of uranium discharges, which in itself has raised eyebrows. Instead, the uranium discharge is limited in terms of its radioactivity, with an annual limit of 0.04 terabecquerels. Prior to this, the discharge limit in terms of radioactivity was 0.1 terabecquerels.

A terabecquerel is a unit of radioactivity equal to 1tn becquerels. One becquerel represents a rate of radioactive decay equal to one radioactive decay per second.

Despite this tighter limit having been agreed six years ago, experts have raised concerns over the continued authorised discharges from the site.

Fairlile specifically questioned the Environment Agency’s modelling of how this discharge level could be classified as safe. “This is a very high level. The Environment Agency’s risk modelling might be unreliable. Which would make its discharge limits unsafe”, he said.

The Environment Agency said its processes for assessing impacts to habitats were “robust and follow international best practice, including the use of a tiered assessment approach”.

Dr Patrick Byrne, a reader in hydrology and environmental pollution at Liverpool John Moores University, said the 703kg of uranium discharged in 2015 was an “exceptionally high volume

Dr Doug Parr, a policy director at Greenpeace UK, said: “Discharges of heavy metals into the environment are never good, especially when those metals are radioactive.”

An Environment Agency spokesperson declined to comment directly, but the regulator said it set “strict environmental permit conditions for all nuclear operators in England, including Springfields Fuels Limited”.

It said these permits were based on “detailed technical assessments and are designed to ensure that any discharges of radioactive substances, including uranium, do not pose an unacceptable risk to people or the environment”.

While the government’s Radioactivity in Food and the Environment report found sources of radiation from Springfield Fuels were approximately 4% of the dose limit to members of the public, it also concluded that radionuclides – specifically isotopes of uranium – were detected downstream in sediment and biota in the Ribble estuary due to discharges from Springfields.

This is not the first time uranium levels in the estuary silt have been noted. Research conducted by the British Geological Survey (BGS) in 2002 detected “anomalously high” concentrations of uranium in a silt sample downstream of the Springfields facility.

The highest level recorded in the BGS report was 60μg/g of uranium in the silt – compared with a background level of 3-4μg/g. The researchers described this as a “significant anomaly”.

The UK is looking to expand its nuclear fuel production capabilities, including at Springfields Fuels. This is in order to increase energy security and reduce reliance on Russian fuel, and to deliver on a target of 24GW of new nuclear capacity by 2050.

A spokesperson from Westinghouse Electric Company UK, the operator of the factory), said: “Springfields is committed to strong environmental stewardship in our Lancashire community. The plant is monitored and regulated by the Environment Agency and operates well within those regulations. For nearly the past 80 years, Springfields has provided high-quality jobs to the local community and the fuel we provide to the UK’s nuclear power plants has avoided billions of tonnes of CO2 from fossil fuels.”

An Environment Agency spokesperson said: “The Environment Agency strictly regulates Springfields Fuels through robust environmental permits that control radioactive discharges, ensuring they pose no unacceptable risk to people or the environment. These permits are based on international best practice and are routinely reviewed, including detailed habitat assessments. Discharge limits have been progressively reduced over time, and monitoring by both the operator and the Environment Agency confirms no cause for alarm.

May 24, 2025 Posted by | UK, Uranium | Leave a comment

Trump Admin Fast Tracks Anfield’s Velvet-Wood Uranium Project in Push for US Energy Independence

Giann Liguid, Investing News 15th May 2025

Anfield Energy’s Velvet-Wood uranium-vanadium project in Utah is the first US uranium asset to receive a fast-track designation.

The US Department of the Interior announced on Monday (May 12) that it will fast track environmental permitting for Anfield Energy’s (TSXV:AEC,OTCQB:ANLDF) Velvet-Wood uranium project in Utah

The decision slashes what would typically be a years-long review process down to just 14 days, and makes Velvet-Wood the first uranium project to be expedited under a January 20 statement from President Donald Trump. In it, he declares a national energy emergency and emphasizes the importance of restoring American energy independence.

This week’s decision signals what Anfield calls “a decisive shift in federal support for domestic nuclear fuel supply.”

The Velvet-Wood project, located in San Juan County, Utah, is expected to produce uranium used for both civilian nuclear energy and defense applications, as well as vanadium, a strategic metal used in batteries and high-strength alloys.

Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum characterized the move as part of an urgent federal response to what he said is “an alarming energy emergency” created by the “climate extremist policies” of the previous administration.

“President Trump and his administration are responding with speed and strength to solve this crisis,” he said. “The expedited mining project review represents exactly the kind of decisive action we need to secure our energy future.”

Anfield acquired Velvet-Wood, which is currently on care and maintenance, from Uranium One in 2015…………………….

The Trump administration’s decision to pause the implementation of its new reciprocal tariffs for 90 days provided utilities with the breathing room needed to resume contracting……………

These moves align with a broader US Department of Energy strategy that includes identifying 16 federal sites for co-locating data centers and new energy infrastructure. https://investingnews.com/trump-fast-tracks-velvet-wood/

May 21, 2025 Posted by | Uranium, USA | Leave a comment

Uranium enrichment to 93% is Iran’s right under Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, lawmakers tell UN watchdog

 Iran International, May 14, 2025, 

Iran’s parliament warned on Wednesday that any perceived infringement by the UN’s nuclear watchdog on its nuclear rights, including the right to enrich uranium up to 93%, would be met with backlash.

n a statement by lawmakers addressed to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the group said that Iran’s rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) — including nuclear research, development, and peaceful use — are non-negotiable and fully verifiable under the IAEA safeguards.

Read by presidium member Ahmad Naderi during a public session, the statement said, “According to Article 4 of the Treaty on the NPT, the great nation of Iran is entitled to three inalienable rights: first, the right to research and development; second, the right to produce; and third, the right to utilize nuclear energy.”

The lawmakers argued that in accordance with this article of the NPT, “the Islamic Republic faces no limitations in nuclear research and development and can proceed with enrichment up to 93% based on its scientific, medical, and industrial needs.”

The lawmakers also criticized the IAEA for what they called four decades of obstructing Iran’s peaceful nuclear development, and for relying on what they called politically motivated intelligence, particularly from Iran’s archenemy, Israel.

Last month, IAEA chief Rafael Grossi said in an interview with Le Monde that Iran was “not far” from being able to produce an atomic bomb, describing the country’s progress as “pieces of a puzzle” that could potentially come together.

Iran maintains that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes and remains under IAEA monitoring.

Also on Wednesday, Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf condemned US President Donald Trump’s recent remarks in Riyadh in which he referenced Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program and Tehran’s support for military proxies, calling them “delusional” and blaming US policies for instability in West Asia…………………………………………………………………………………..

“Iran is not a warmonger, but we will never surrender. We are brothers with our neighbors and reject US efforts to stir division to boost its arms sales,” he said. https://www.iranintl.com/en/202505143023

May 18, 2025 Posted by | Iran, Uranium | Leave a comment

Iran proposes partnership with UAE and Saudi Arabia to enrich uranium

A consortium would help Tehran deal with US objections and tie in Gulf states to its enrichment programme

Patrick Wintour, 14 Apr 25, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/13/iran-proposes-partnership-with-uae-and-saudi-arabia-to-enrich-uranium

Iran has floated the idea of a consortium of Middle Eastern countries – including Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) – to enrich uranium, in a effort to overcome US objections to its continued enrichment programme.

The proposal is seen as a way of locking Gulf states into supporting Iran’s position that it should be allowed to retain enrichment capabilities.

Tehran views the proposal as a concession, since it would be giving neighbouring states access to its technological knowledge and making them stakeholders in the process.

It is not clear if Abbas Araghchi, the Iranian foreign minister, made the proposal in relatively brief three-hour talks with the US in Oman on Sunday, the fourth set of such talks, but the proposal is reportedly circulating in Tehran.

The US has demanded that Iran ends enrichment and dismantles all its nuclear facilities. But amid divisions in Washington, Trump has not made a final decision on the issue and praised Iran’s seriousness in the talks.

The consortium idea was first proposed by former Iranian nuclear negotiator Seyed Hossein Mousavian and Princeton physicist Frank von Hippel long before the current Tehran-Washington talks, in a widely read October 2023 article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

Under the consortium, the Saudis and UAE would be shareholders and funders, and would gain access to Iranian technology. The involvement of the Gulf states could be seen as an extra insurance that Iran’s nuclear programme was for entirely civil purposes and not the pathway to building a bomb, as Israel alleges.

If the Saudis and UAE were permitted to send engineers to Iran, an extra form of visibility about the programme would become possible, leaving the international community less reliant solely on the work of the UN nuclear inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Iran gradually moved away from the levels of enrichment and stockpile limits set out in the original 2015 deal, blaming Trump for leaving the nuclear deal. Iran’s deputy foreign minister, Majid Takht-Ravanchi, said: “For a limited period of time, we can accept a series of restrictions on the level and volume of enrichment.”

The US originally gave the impression that it needs an agreement with Iran within two months of the talks starting but, as the technicalities of any agreement become more complex, it is possible the talks will be allowed to drag on through the summer.

Iran currently enriches uranium to 60% purity – far above the 3.67% limit set in the 2015 deal, and a short technical step from 90% needed for weapons-grade material. The US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, said these uranium enrichment level are far higher than necessary for civilian uses.

In what may have been a reference to the Iranian proposal Omani foreign minister, Badr Al Busaidi, referred to “useful and original ideas reflecting a shared wish to reach an honourable agreement”.

The UAE operates a civil nuclear power plant named Barakah, located west of Abu Dhabi. It is the first nuclear power plant in the Arab world to be fully operational, with all four reactors now online, and should be capable of producing a quarter of the UAE’s electricity needs.

May 15, 2025 Posted by | Iran, politics international, Uranium | Leave a comment

Uranium’s hazardous effects on humans and recent developments in treatment

USA National Library of Medicine, Epub 2025 Mar 12. Yahya Faqir 1Ziang Li 1Talaal Gul 1Zahoor 1Ziwei Jiang 2Libing Yu 2Chengjia Tan 3Xi Chen 4Jiahua Ma 5Jiafu Feng 6

Abstract

Uranium, a naturally occurring element, is predominantly recognized for its role as fuel in both civilian and military energy sectors. Concerns have been raised regarding the adverse environmental impacts and health risks associated with uranium mining due to the exposure it causes. Such exposure leads to systemic toxicity, affecting pulmonary, hepatic, renal, reproductive, neurological, and bone health. This review identifies significant research gaps regarding detoxification methods for uranium contamination and recommends further advancements, including genetic modification and exploration of plant compounds. A comprehensive review of published research materials from diverse sources of uranium, including various treatments and hazardous impacts on the human body, was conducted. Additionally, a PRISMA analysis was performed in this study. This review emphasizes the importance of collaboration and the formulation of research-informed regulations to effectively safeguard vulnerable communities from the consequences of contamination. Public discourse often emphasizes the significance of radiotoxicity; however, the non-radioactive chemotoxicity of uranium has been identified as a significant risk factor for environmental exposures, contingent upon species, enrichment, and exposure route. Given these serious health consequences, several methods are being investigated to ameliorate uranium toxicity. In response to these concerns, several techniques, such as phytomedicinal treatments, biochemical approaches, and chelation therapy, have been investigated to minimize the adverse effects of uranium exposure in the human body……………………………………………………..https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40080936/#:~:text=Concerns%20have%20been%20raised%20regarding,%2C%20neurological%2C%20and%20bone%20health

April 17, 2025 Posted by | health, Uranium | Leave a comment

The West has big plans for nuclear power: Will geopolitics play ball?

According to data from the US government, Russia holds roughly 44% of the
world’s uranium enrichment capacity. In terms of US demand for enriched
uranium, Russia accounted for 27% of this total (SWU) in 2023. To turn to
data from Euratom, Russia provided 37.9% of the total enrichment work to
supply EU utilities in the same year.

Faced with this dependency on Moscow,
former US president Joe Biden brought in a law banning uranium imports from
Russia in mid-2024. The legislation allowed some shipments to continue
until the end of 2027, although Russia then hit back with its own measures
— placing a temporary ban on these exports to the US.

“The US and Europe can quite quickly bring on new conversion facilities, but enrichment
will be more difficult,” Benjamin Godwin, head of analysis at PRISM, told
Euronews. “Inconsistency in policymaking in both the US and EU does make
it difficult for companies to commit to such capital-intensive projects,
but, as the Trump administration beds in, there is hope that industry will
be given a clearer signal on this,” he added.

One issue, experts claim,
is that both power plant operators and fuel suppliers are hesitant to be
the first to commit to future projects. Those producing nuclear power don’t
want to sign up to long-term supply deals unless they know uranium
processing facilities are being built. On the other hand, processors are
reluctant to expand unless they have agreements from buyers.

Euro News 5th April 2025, https://www.euronews.com/business/2025/04/05/the-west-has-big-plans-for-nuclear-power-will-geopolitics-play-ball

April 7, 2025 Posted by | politics international, Uranium | Leave a comment

Greenland’s uranium ban likely to continue.

Gordon Edwards, 30 Mar 25

Donald Trump has belligerently bragged that he will “get Greenland” one way or another. The officially stated piurpose is “national security” but there is also a strong underlying motive: possessing the “rich resources” of others.

Greenland has one of the largest identified deposite of “

Rare Earth Elements” (REE), that are always intimately mingled with uranium and thorium. There is a mountain rich in such radioactive ores located very close to the Inuit village of Narsaq (southern Greenland) that developers would like to strip-mine. This project is called Kuannersuit (in the Inuit language Greenlandic) or Kvanefjeld (in Danish). 
If approved for mining the main commodity from Narsaq would be rare earths and the secondary commodity would be uranium. The economics of the project dictates marketing both. 

However, t
here is currently a ban on uranium mining in Greenland which precludes this mining project from going forward. In 2016  Neils Henrik Hooge was sent to Narsaq by the Canadian group Physicans for Global Survival (PGS), to communicate some of the health-related concerns associated with uranium (and thorium) mining, at the request of the IA (Inuit Ataqatigiit) political party. The ban was enacted a few years afterwards. 

PGS in now IPPNWC – International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Canada.

Yesterday (March 28) a coalition government was installed in Greenland which includes the IA party. The ban on uranium mining will likely be upheld and extended for the foreseeable future. So probably no Kvanejeld/Kuannersuit project for now.

But Donald Trump wants those rare earth elements from Greenland. Coincidentally, he is bullying Ukraine into surrendering its rare earth minerals to the USA in exchange for Trump’s brokering a limited cease-fire in the war.

The global supply of rare earths is currently a quasi-monopoly of China. These elements are of crucial importance in many electronic applications, including renewable enetrgy sources. America’s billionaires want unfettered access for Artificial Intelligence and other profitable ventures,.
Canada of course is another tempting target for Trump’s rapacious appetite. Among the plentiful natural resources that Canada has been exploiting and exporting routinely, as if there is no tomorrow, almost always at the expense of indigenous peoples and the environment, Trump’s gang knows there rare earth deposits in Northern Ontario’s “Ring of Fire”. He – and presumably his friend Elon Musk – wants them.

Why should Greenland, or Canada, retain control over anything that Donald Trump wants? 
He is tired of being treated unfairly! 

March 31, 2025 Posted by | Uranium | Leave a comment

‘Protect our future’: Alaskan Indigenous town fights ‘destructive’ uranium mine project

Aisha Kehoe Down in Elim

This summer, the Canadian mining company Panther
Minerals is set to start exploration for a uranium mine at the headwaters
of the Tubuktulik river, adjacent to Elim’s land. David Hedderly-Smith, a
consultant to Panther and the owner of mining claims for the property, has
said the site could become the “uranium capital of America”.

The people of Elim have opposed the mine since last May, when Panther Minerals
announced its intention to apply for exploration permits. In interviews,
they said they feared for their health, and spoke of the cancer and
contamination that followed uranium mining on Navajo land in the 1960s, 70s
and 80s.

 Guardian 25th March 2025,
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/25/uranium-mine-elim-alaska-trump

March 27, 2025 Posted by | indigenous issues, Uranium | Leave a comment

Uranium fever collides with industry’s dark past in Navajo country

Mining.com, Bloomberg News | January 14, 2025

A few miles south of the Grand Canyon, thousands of tons of uranium ore, reddish-gray, blue and radioactive, are piled up high in a clearing in the forest.

They’ve been there for months, stranded by a standoff between the mining company that dug them deep out of the ground, Energy Fuels Inc., and the leader of the Navajo Nation, Buu Nygren.

Back in the summer, Energy Fuels had triggered an uproar when it loaded some of the ore onto a truck, slapped a “radioactive” sign over the taillights and drove it through the heart of Navajo territory.

Radioactive is an alarming word anywhere, but here in Navajo country, surrounded by hundreds of abandoned uranium mines that powered America’s nuclear arms race with the USSR and spewed toxic waste into the land, it causes terror. Those fears have only grown the past couple years as nuclear power came back in vogue and sparked a uranium rush in mining camps all across the Southwest.

So when the news made it to Nygren that morning, he was furious. No one had sought his consent for the shipment. He quickly ordered dozens of police officers to throw on their sirens, fan out and intercept the truck.

The dragnet turned up nothing in the end — the truck snuck through — but the hard-line response delivered a warning, amplified over social media and ratified days later by the governor of Arizona, to the miners: Stay out of Navajo country.

Cut off from the lone processing mill in the US — all the main routes cut through Navajo territory — executives at Energy Fuels stockpiled it by the entrance of the mine. When the heaps of crushed rock grew too sprawling, they pulled the miners out of the tunnels and turned the drilling machines off…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Animosity towards mining companies runs high on Navajo land. It’s visible everywhere. On huge roadside billboards and small office signs, in fading pinks and yellows and jet blacks, too. They read “Radioactive Pollution Kills” and “Haul No” and, along the main entrance to Cameron, a hard-scrabble village on the territory’s western edge, “No Uranium Mining.”

A few miles down the road, big mounds of sand streaked gray and blue rise, one after the other, high above the vast desert landscape. They are the tailings from some of the uranium mines that were abandoned in the territory last century.

To Ray Yellowfeather, a 50-year-old construction worker, the tailings were always the “blue hills,” just one big playground for him and his childhood friends.

“We would climb up the blue hills and slide back down,” Yellowfeather says. “Nobody told us they were dangerous.”

Years later, they would be cordoned off by the Environmental Protection Agency as it began work to clean up the mines. By then, though, the damage was done. Like many around here, Yellowfeather says he’s lost several family members to stomach cancer. The last of them was his mother in 2022.

Yellowfeather admits he doesn’t know exactly what caused their cancer but, he says, “I have to think it has to do with the piles of radioactive waste all around us.” It’s in the construction material in many of the homes and buildings and in the aquifers, too. To this day, drinking water is shipped into some of the hardest-hit areas.

The US government has recognized the harm its nuclear arms projects have done to communities in the Southwest. In 1990, Congress passed a law to compensate victims who contracted cancer and other diseases. It paid out some $2.5 billion over the ensuing three decades. The EPA, meanwhile, has been in charge of the clean-up of the abandoned mines. Two decades after the program began, though, only a small percentage have been worked on at all.

This is giving mining companies an opportunity to curry favor in tribal communities by offering to take over and expedite the clean-up of some mines.

…………………………………………………………………………..the EPA released a detailed study on Pinyon Plain. In it, the agency found that operations at the mine could contaminate the water supply of the Havasupai, a tribe tucked in such a remote corner of the Grand Canyon that it receives mail by mule. The report emboldened Havasupai leaders to step up their opposition to the mine, adding to Chalmers’s growing list of problems.

For the Navajo, the risks that come from the hauling of uranium through its territory are far smaller — so negligible as to be almost non-existent, according to Chalmers. Nygren is unmoved. The Navajo have heard such reassurances many times before, he says, only to pay dearly in the end.

Nygren grew up near a cluster of old mines right along the territory’s Arizona-Utah border, which makes the whole Energy Fuels affair “incredibly personal,” he says. His voice grows louder now and his tone more emphatic, indignant. To him, the Energy Fuels incursion feels no different than all the abuses committed over the course of decades by the US government and the mining companies that supplied it with a steady stream of uranium.

“We played a big role in the national security of the United States and we played a big part in the Cold War, providing energy for nuclear weapons. We’ve done our part. And now it’s time for the US to do its part by cleaning up these mines and respecting our laws.”  https://www.mining.com/web/uranium-fever-collides-with-industrys-dark-past-in-navajo-country/

March 16, 2025 Posted by | environment, indigenous issues, Uranium, USA | Leave a comment

Poisoning the well – The toxic legacy of Cold War uranium mining in western New Mexico

Studies have shown that chronic exposure to uranium through drinking water can cause kidney damage and cardiovascular disease. When inhaled, uranium can lead to lung cancer and pulmonary fibrosis, a scarring of the lung tissue. Studies of uranium miners associate cumulative exposure to radon with higher rates of death by lung cancer.

Proving that one’s illness originated as a result of living near a mine or mill, as opposed to actually working in it, is nearly impossible, given that symptoms can take years to manifest — a lack of clear causation that is ultimately advantageous to polluters.

Near the western New Mexico town of Grants, the toxic legacy of Cold War uranium mining and milling has shattered lives, destroyed homes and created a contamination threat to the last clean source of groundwater for an entire region

SEARCHLIGHT NEW MEXICO, by Alicia Inez Guzmán, March 13, 2025 [ excellent pictures and maps]

Driving along a stretch of New Mexico Highway 605, just north of the tiny Village of Milan, it’s easy to imagine that this area has always been no-man’s-land. Little appears in the distance except for a smattering of homes and trees peppered by expanses of bone-dry scrub brush. But a hard second look reveals something else — vestiges of a mass departure. Sidewalks lead to nowhere, a dog house sits in the middle of a field next to a mound of cinder blocks, phone lines crisscross empty stretches of land and deserted propane tanks and mailboxes sit perched in front of nothing. Around the bend on one unpaved side road, a neighborhood watch sign stands sentinel where a neighborhood no longer exists…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

This home site was once part of a cluster of five rural subdivisions interspersed with rich farm and ranchland. The Homestake Mining Company — famously known for gold mining in the Black Hills of South Dakota — took up residence here in 1958, to mill uranium. From that year until 1990, millions of tons of ore were prised from nearby mines and processed at Homestake, where the ore was ground into fine particles and leached with a solution that coaxed out pure uranium oxide, often called “yellowcake.” That uranium was then shipped off to help make America’s Cold War fleet of nuclear weapons or to power nuclear reactors. The leftover slurry was piped into two unlined earthen pits, the largest the size of 50 football fields and filled with over 21 million tons of uranium mill tailings.

Over time, the uranium tailings decayed into radon gas; meanwhile, radioactive contaminants seeped into four of the region’s aquifers. Residents compiled a list of neighbors who died of cancer — they called it the Death Map. In 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) predicted that the probability of developing cancer was notably higher for residents who lived closest to the mill, especially if they drank the water.

In the intervening decades, Homestake attempted to hold its remaining contamination at bay rather than offer a long-term solution. That changed in 2020, when the company declared that a full cleanup of the groundwater was not feasible and instead embarked on a mass buyout and demolition of homes inside the rural subdivisions and beyond, Boomer and Billiman’s included. Homestake’s goal, ultimately, is to hand over 6,100 acres of land — almost twice the size of nearby Milan — to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) as part of a special federal program that takes over shuttered nuclear outfits when industry walks away. The deadline is 2035. And if this site is anything like the majority of the DOE’s other sites, the land will be rendered inaccessible to the public, with the company’s guarantee that toxins will stay inside the massive contamination zone boundary for a thousand years.

“Talk about the myth of containment,” says Christine Lowery, a commissioner in Cibola County. “The myth of reclamation as well,” she adds. For Lowery, a member of the Pueblo of Laguna who lives in Paguate, one of its six villages — itself blighted by the Jackpile-Paguate Uranium Mine, one of the world’s largest open pit uranium mines — the subtext is clear. “What they should be saying is, ‘We’ve contaminated everything we can, and there’s no way we can fix it.’”

In fact, the conditions necessary for contaminants to infiltrate a fifth aquifer in a single generation — not a thousand years — could already be in the making. The aquifer in question is the San Andres-Glorieta, so ancient that its limestone was forged from the same material as seashells before the era of the dinosaurs. It’s also the last clean source of groundwater for Milan, the county seat of Grants, many private well owners and the Pueblo of Laguna, as well as the Pueblo of Acoma, one of the longest continually inhabited communities in the United States.

According to regulators, the San Andres-Glorieta still meets standards for groundwater that is safe to use and drink. According to Homestake’s own reports, however, at least three uranium plumes are converging toward what Ann Maest, an aqueous geochemist with Buka Environmental, a Colorado-based firm, calls “a bull’s-eye of radioactive contamination.” The potential target? A geological formation called a subcrop. Here, approximately 100 feet below the surface of the earth and three miles southwest of the Homestake site, this subcrop directly connects the San Andres-Glorieta with an overlying aquifer long known to transport contamination from two uranium mills including Homestake. In 2022, the company commissioned an independent firm to study the geological feature. But according to a memo sent to state and federal regulators and written by Maest the following year, the findings were “light on interpretation” and evaded answering the most important question of all: Have those contaminants reached the San Andres-Glorieta?………………………

Gauging the extent of groundwater plumes is notoriously difficult. Topography and geology shape how groundwater moves, and sampling can underestimate the full range of a plume, leaving gaps in the data, whether that’s inadvertent or intentional. A 2022 ProPublica investigation found that regulators had been lax in their oversight of the Homestake mill, its toxic footprint and the uranium industry as a whole. Over time, a dizzying array of state and federal agencies have each overseen a different aspect of the site’s reclamation; in the past, those agencies haven’t even agreed on what that reclamation should look like.

Now, as uranium mining undergoes a national revival under initiatives that favor carbon-free nuclear energy, waste from the previous Cold War era of mining and milling endures. Homestake’s remediation — which has gone on for 49 years — exemplifies this legacy. During that time, company reports say, its collection wells have pumped out billions of gallons of contaminated water. Nearly one million pounds of uranium have been removed from the groundwater, too. Bingham says this represents 85 percent of the total uranium that was released into the environment. That’s in addition to the removal of tens of thousands of pounds of selenium and over a million pounds of molybdenum.

The company has attempted to keep pollutants that have seeped into groundwater from migrating farther away from the source. But this so-called hydraulic barrier has only addressed the symptoms of the contamination, not the cause: the tailings piles, which the company declined to relocate into a lined repository nearby. That means that some groundwater contamination continues to spread beyond Homestake’s site. The hydraulic barrier has another drawback — it has used “a massive amount of freshwater from the San Andres-Glorieta aquifer to operate,” says Laura Watchempino, a member of the Multicultural Alliance for a Safe Environment (MASE), a grassroots network of uranium-impacted communities working collectively to address the legacy of mining and milling on the health and environment of future generations. Watchempino is a former lawyer who also worked as a water quality specialist for the Pueblo of Acoma………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………….Carver estimates that he is one of around 30 holdouts left in the five subdivisions; four of the families live in his own, Murray Acres. But few others have spent so much time fighting to hold the company accountable. “I’m 85 and it all started when I was 40,” he says.

In 1983, he was one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed against the company, which argued, among other claims, that contamination of the well water had “completely destroyed the market value of the plaintiffs’ properties.” As part of the settlement, the company made small cash payments to residents and hooked them up to the municipal water system, which drew from the last clean source of water in the region, the San Andres-Glorieta. That year, the mill was designated a Superfund site, and in 1987 the company entered into a consent order with the EPA to analyze radon levels in residents’ homes, the product of uranium decaying from the tailings piles.

The mill closed in 1990, less than a decade after the uranium industry went bust. Records from the county assessor’s office show that Homestake quietly began buying a handful of homes in adjacent neighborhoods as early as 1996. (In 2001, Homestake Mining merged with the Canadian juggernaut, Barrick Gold, one of the world’s largest gold mining companies.)

“Every time someone dies or decides to move away, Homestake-Barrick Gold buys the property at a greatly reduced cost, which they can do because their ineffective groundwater remediation has devalued property many of us worked lifetimes to build,” Candace Head-Dylla, a former resident, said in a 2017 letter to the NRC.

In 2020, the company argued that it was no longer technically practical to clean up the groundwater to match its pre-mill days, Bingham wrote. So began the tangled regulatory process of applying for a less-stringent cleanup standard through the NR……………………………………

Searchlight asked the DOE for comment, but the agency declined. According to Samah Shaiq, a former DOE spokesperson, the agency is not yet responsible for the site.

The NRC denied Homestake’s application for the lower standard — the basis of the buyout — but the company remains steadfast in its desire to walk away. As part of those plans, Homestake has already scooped up approximately 455 of the estimated 523 properties that sit inside its proposed boundary, an expanse that’s nearly as large as the most contaminated area of the Rocky Flats Plant, another of the more than 100 sites under the DOE’s perpetual care, where thousands of plutonium bomb cores for the nation’s nuclear arsenal were fabricated between 1952 and 1989. 

Much of Milan, along with huge swaths of land west and north, including some five miles of Highway 605, sit within this massive pie-shaped chunk, a proposed boundary that is based on the company’s groundwater modeling data. Inside are public water and electric lines, groundwater wells, septic systems and other, smaller roads, the fate of which have yet to be determined. Milan Elementary School sits only a mile away from the boundary’s southernmost rim.

When Searchlight asked how fast those plumes are migrating, drawing on a Homestake-produced simulation that’s meant to predict how contaminants move in groundwater aquifers at the site, the EPA declined to comment, because the simulation was still in draft form.

Regulators, meanwhile, are plodding through the process of determining what final act of remediation they should require before allowing Homestake to hand off the site to the DOE. But prospects for that remedy depend on whether and when the company will receive a lower cleanup threshold. If a lower standard is settled on, that remedy, whatever it may be, will fall radically short of truly protecting groundwater, advocates believe. Adding to the uncertainty is a recent announcement that the Trump administration intends to cut personnel at the EPA by up to 65 percent.

The future of the site seems all but predetermined: a wasteland in the truest sense, and a national sacrifice zone. The buyout, a prologue to this future, has fractured residents’ lives in the present. Homestake subjected sellers to nondisclosure agreements — “standard business practice,” in Bingham’s words — but to some in the community, a mechanism for silencing dissent……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

“We’ve been poisoned to the gills”

The Grants Mining District stretches from the Pueblo of Laguna to Gallup, across almost 100 miles of western New Mexico’s red bluffs. Uranium here and throughout the world is ancient even by cosmic standards………………………………………………………

…………………………..in time, more than 150 mines would be developed across this district and the greater San Mateo Creek Basin, and, today, there are a total of 261 former uranium mines statewide, making New Mexico the fourth-largest producer of uranium globally, behind East Germany, the Athabasca Basin and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which supplied much of the uranium for the Manhattan Project. 

But with the uranium boom came a wave of devastation across the greater Southwest, including in Indigenous communities like the Pueblo of Laguna, as well as the Navajo Nation, where there are more than 500 abandoned uranium mines. Workers often lived near mines and mills and would bring yellowcake home on their clothes, exposing their families to harmful radioactive dust; water sources, meanwhile, have shown “elevated levels of radiation,” according to the EPA. 

In the Church Rock Chapter of the Navajo Nation, a tailings dam breached on an early July morning in 1979, sending contaminated water into the Rio Puerco. Today, it constitutes the largest release of nuclear materials in the U.S. worse even than the meltdown at Three Mile Island. 

Church Rock was among the eight mills that processed uranium ore in New Mexico. Others include Homestake and, in its immediate vicinity, Bluewater  and two mills at Ambrosia Lake. Workers flocked here from across the state and nation during the booming 1960s and 1970s, with Homestake alone employing 1,500 people at its peak.

After graduating from high school and intermittently through his college years, Carver worked stints at all four of those mills before opening his own business, Carver Oil. At Homestake, he worked at a site where yellowcake was processed and packaged into barrels to go to Oak Ridge, Tennessee, where it would be enriched for use in nuclear weapons. He also worked in the tailings piles.

Carver now receives benefits for spots on his lungs from the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA), a program he qualified for because of his time working in the mills. Whether his illness was compounded by living near the mill tailings and by breathing excess radon, or by drinking the water — at least until the company connected residents to a clean source — is unknown. Studies have shown that chronic exposure to uranium through drinking water can cause kidney damage and cardiovascular disease. When inhaled, uranium can lead to lung cancer and pulmonary fibrosis, a scarring of the lung tissue. Studies of uranium miners associate cumulative exposure to radon with higher rates of death by lung cancer.

Maggie Billiman, who’s from the Sawmill Chapter of the Navajo Nation, has advocated for RECA to cover people in New Mexico and parts of Arizona who lived downwind of atmospheric nuclear tests or who worked in mines after 1971, the current cutoff date. Last fall, she traveled with other Indigenous activists to Washington, D.C., as part of her efforts to expand RECA after struggling with various undiagnosed illnesses for years; several painful cysts that have yet to be biopsied were recently found on her liver and pancreas. Many doctor visits later, she’s still pursuing a clear diagnosis and treatment plan. 

But whether or how one gets sick can depend on biological sex, age when exposed and the pathway a certain type of radioactive particle takes to enter the body. Proving that one’s illness originated as a result of living near a mine or mill, as opposed to actually working in it, is nearly impossible, given that symptoms can take years to manifest — a lack of clear causation that is ultimately advantageous to polluters.

Groundwater contamination from uranium mining was detected as early as 1961. Even before that, the federal government was aware that New Mexico’s waterways were already showing signs of radioactive contamination from the burgeoning uranium extraction industry. It would take another 15 years for Homestake to begin a convoluted, if limited, remediation effort: A series of collection wells would pull contaminated water out and treat it, then pump that water, along with clean water sourced from the San Andres-Glorieta, back into the subsurface.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. It’s hard to visualize such an underground fortification — on maps, it looks like a cashew-shaped moat that wraps around the west and south sides of the large tailings pile — or the timescale needed for its maintenance. In 1982, Homestake said it would “require operation for a considerable amount of time.” In response, NMED declared that Homestake had to commit to operating the system until it “can be demonstrated that contaminants in the groundwater will not exceed New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission standards off Homestake’s property in the foreseeable future.” 

Advocates believe that means forever. If barrier maintenance is stopped, experts contend that highly contaminated groundwater will migrate southward and downward and eventually make its way to the subcrop, an entry point into the San Andres-Glorieta, municipal supply wells for Milan and Grants and eventually the Río San José. “This signals a bleak future for the stream system and for future generations,” Laura Watchempino warns. 

Bluewater’s plume is coming from the northwest; Homestake’s plumes from the northeast. Models show that all are converging, like a Venn diagram, in a location where groundwater flows toward the subcrop. On one side, the hydraulic barrier is warding off some of that pollution, but when it stops operation completely, those contaminants will very likely infiltrate the San Andres-Glorieta, according to NMED

In the past, it’s been difficult to discern what contaminants belong to what polluter, especially when they mingle, as is the case here. But in 2019, the USGS published the findings of a study that “fingerprinted” such mine and mill contaminants to show their point of origin……………………….

…………………………………….. “We’ve been poisoned to the gills,” says Christine Lowery, the Cibola county commissioner. “The question is: How do we recover and live with contamination?”

Alicia Inez Guzmán

alicia@searchlightnm.org

Raised in the northern New Mexican village of Truchas, Alicia Inez Guzmán has written about histories of place, identity and land use in New Mexico. She brings this knowledge to her current role at Searchlight, where she focuses on nuclear issues and the impacts of the nuclear industry. The former senior editor of New Mexico Magazine, Alicia holds a Ph.D. in Visual and Cultural Studies from the University of Rochester in New York. More by Alicia Inez Guzmán  https://searchlightnm.org/new-mexico-cold-war-uranium-mining-toxic-legacy-threat-homes-underground-aquifers/?utm_source=Searchlight+New+Mexico&utm_campaign=d2d0fd81fc-3%2F13%2F2025+%E2%80%93+Poisoning+the+well&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8e05fb0467-d2d0fd81fc-395610620&mc_cid=d2d0fd81fc&mc_eid=a70296a261

March 15, 2025 Posted by | environment, Uranium, USA | Leave a comment

Fukushima Remembered At URENCO’s Uranium Enrichment Plant Today in Cheshire

Campaigners gathered today at the UK’s uranium enrichment plant to
remember Fukushima and hand over a letter of concern about uranium
enrichment. Today marks the 14th anniversary of the Fukushima catastrophe.
On March 11, 2011, a record 9.0-magnitude quake struck off the coast of
Japan’s Tohoku region, triggering a tsunami with waves that reached a
maximum height of 40.5 meters and causing a triple nuclear meltdown at the
Fukushima No.1 nuclear plant.

 Radiation Free Lakeland 11th March 2025, https://mariannewildart.wordpress.com/2025/03/11/fukushima-remembered-at-urencos-uranium-enrichment-plant-today-in-cheshire/

March 14, 2025 Posted by | UK, Uranium | Leave a comment

Fearing toxic waste, Greenland ended uranium mining. Now, they could be forced to restart – or pay $11bn

 Fearing toxic waste, Greenland ended uranium mining. Now, they could be
forced to restart – or pay $11bn. The island is being sued by a mining
company over its decision, and faces paying nine times its annual budget in
damages if it loses.

From the iceberg-filled bay, the mountains above the
town of Narsaq, in south-west Greenland, appear unremarkable. In the
September warmth, clumps of grass cling to the smooth, grey peaks shaped
over centuries by an enormous ice cap that lurks behind the fjords on the
horizon. Brightly coloured homes are scattered around the shoreline below,
home to a community of just over 1,300 people.

Were it not for a mining
outhouse on the edge of town, there would be little indication of the
potential riches in the rock. The range is home to one of the largest
undeveloped deposits of rare-earth minerals and uranium in the world: the
Kvanefjeld site, or Kuannersuit in Greenlandic. It contains high
concentrations of metals such as terbium and neodymium, which are used to
manufacture permanent magnets in wind turbines and electric cars. Every
major power in the world is scrambling to get access to these minerals for
carbon-free energy and transport.

A proposed open-pit mine would be worth
about $7.5bn (£6bn) if it went ahead, according to the site operator,
generating income for the island’s economy. But when the mining company
acquired the site in 2007, the impact of potentially radioactive waste
contaminating drinking water and nearby sheep farms alarmed local people.
They feared that the “tailings” – a slurry of ground-up waste from
mining – would be laced with radioactive waste and could contaminate
waterways or spread as dust in the air.

 Guardian 5th March 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/mar/05/greenland-mining-energy-transition-minerals-environmental-laws-uranium-rare-earth-toxic-waste-investor-state-dispute-settlement-isds-aoe

March 7, 2025 Posted by | ARCTIC, Uranium | Leave a comment

As tensions rise, Canada to lean on U.S. for uranium enrichment

Matthew McClearn, February 24, 2025, Globe and Mail

Even as U.S. President Donald Trump talks of waging a campaign of “economic force” to persuade Canada to join a political union with the United States, Ontario Power Generation is preparing to construct an American reactor at its Darlington Nuclear Generating Station. The reactor’s uranium fuel would be enriched at a facility in New Mexico, a new vulnerability U.S. administrations could exploit.

Canada’s 17 operating reactors are of thehomegrown Candu design, which consume natural uranium. Canada possesses uranium in abundance and has long made its own fuel. But nearly all the reactors promoted for construction now require enriched uranium, which Canada can’t produce.

Proposals by Canadian utilities to build new reactors attracted American vendors, including GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy (which is designing the BWRX-300, planned for deployment at Darlington and in Saskatchewan), Westinghouse Electric Co. and ARC Clean Technology. Until the past few months, the risks of the U.S. government weaponizing nuclear fuel against allies for political purposes seemed distant. Now it’s just one more aspect of Canada-U.S. relations that Mr. Trump has disrupted.

“Developing a dependence on another country for our nuclear fuel has always been a concern and recent events have proven those concerns are justified,” Bob Walker, national director of the Canadian Nuclear Workers’Council, an umbrella organization of unions within Canada’s nuclear industry, said in a written response to questions.

We haven’t done our due diligence in terms of having other partners,” said Akira Tokuhiro, a professor in Ontario Tech University’s nuclear engineering department.

“Canada needs to really invest and make a concerted effort to find and establish the nuclear supply chain without the United States.”………………………………………………………………………………………

Nuclear fuel supply agreements are typically confidential, so it’s unclear what provisions GE-Hitachi and OPG have made to deal with supply disruptions. (Orano’s presence, though, seems to offer OPG a non-American enrichment supplier.) Neither company granted an interview for this article.

“The arrangements are probably as robust as they could be under normal circumstances, but the circumstances are no longer normal,” Mr. Walker said.

“This is a very fluid situation,” OPG spokesperson Neal Kelly wrote in a statement. “We are proactively evaluating potential impacts and will act as the situation arises.”

Tariffs could make nuclear fuel far more costly. One mitigating factor, however, is that fuel represents a relatively small portion of nuclear plant operating costs – typically under 20 per cent. That’s a striking contrast with power plants that burn oil or natural gas.

George Christidis, acting chief executive of the Canadian Nuclear Association, said that if Washington imposed a 25-per-cent tariff on Canadian uranium, that would harm the U.S. enough to force re-evaluation.

“There’s such an interconnection within our industry, on the uranium side right into the American economy and energy system, that in the end, it really would be something that may cause them a lot of distress.”

The U.S. government could also deny Canada access to enriched fuel, for example as part of a broader campaign to undermine Canadian sovereignty, or to reserve it exclusively for American utilities.

“A presidential executive order could force the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to disallow shipments to Canada,” Mr. Walker wrote.

“We don’t know how likely it is but there is a risk it could happen.”

Halting nuclear fuel shipments likely wouldn’t have the immediate impact of, say, ceasing deliveries to Canada on natural gas pipelines. Unlike gas-fired power plants, which require a steady stream of fuel, reactors are only refuelled periodically, affording time to adjust. And the high energy density of nuclear fuel facilitates stockpiling.

Mr. Christidis discounted the idea that the U.S. would disrupt Canada’s ability to acquire low-enriched uranium.

“I think quite strongly that there will be a path forward between the two countries to work together.”

Ms. Hanebach said Canada’s uranium supply would provide leverage in negotiating relationships with new enrichment partners. But the list is short.

“If the U.S. decided to pull enrichment capacity, it would be Russia, then it’s China,” she said. “And then there’s some in France, Netherlands, U.K. and Germany. That’s it.”

Experts told The Globe and Mail that there’s no aspect of the Candu’s fuel cycle that relies on American inputs, making it more resilient to disruption.

AtkinsRéalis Group Inc., which has exclusive licensing rights to Candu technology, regards that as a trump card against U.S. competitors – as it made clear in a survey it published in January. “Candu uses unenriched uranium,” noted the preamble to one question, while another said: “Westinghouse uses enriched uranium imported from countries like Russia.” Informed by such statements, 84 per cent of respondents said they preferred Candus over Westinghouse reactors.

“Candu emerges as the clear favourite,” AtkinsRéalis enthused.

But there’s a problem: The Candu is widely regarded as obsolete. The last one built in Canada was Darlington Unit 4, completed in 1993. Since then a number of new designs have been drawn up, but none were licensed or built. AtkinsRéalis now has a team of 250 employees designing a modernized version dubbed the Monark.

If Canada follows through on plans to build a fleet of light water reactors in Ontario, Saskatchewan and possibly elsewhere, it could elect to build its own enrichment capacity. Energy analyst Juzel Lloyd suggested doing precisely this, in a recent commentary for the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

“Recent global events demand that the Canadian government re-evaluate its position on uranium enrichment,” she wrote.

“By initiating enrichment services, Canada can diversify the global nuclear supply chain, reduce reliance on Russian fuel and ensure the energy security of both established and emerging nuclear-powered states.”

The conventional wisdom, though, is that enrichment is so technically challenging and costly that only nuclear weapons states can justify it. (Japan is the noteworthy exception.) Prof. Tokuhiro said acquiring enrichment capacity would cost at least $100-billion and take at least 20 years.

“It’s more money than the Canadian government is willing to commit,” he said.

Ms. Hanebach observed that many legislative and regulatory changes would be required. Canada is a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, for example. “We would need to work with the International Atomic Energy Agency on that, and then implement that in domestic legislation,” she said. Canada doesn’t have a regulatory framework for enrichment, either.

Internationally, enrichment capability is tightly controlled by the Nuclear Suppliers Group to prevent weapons proliferation. Canada’s a member but is not permitted to enrich uranium.

Steve Aplin, of the Canadian Nuclear Workers’ Council, said Canada had sought U.S. support in 2006 before the Group to construct an enrichment facility here in Canada, but the U.S. refused outright.

“It was all very preliminary,” Mr. Aplin wrote. “The Americans refused because they want to control how many ‘enrichers’ there are in the world.”

Furthermore, he said that had the U.S. acquiesced, Russia, which is also a member, would not.

“Russia, like America, likes the fact they possess enrichment capacity and others don’t.” subscription:https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-with-us-tensions-rising-canada-lacks-its-own-uranium-enrichment/

February 28, 2025 Posted by | Uranium | Leave a comment