Nukewatch

Working for a nuclear-free future since 1979

  • Issues
    • Direct Action
    • Environmental Justice
    • Nuclear Power
      • Chernobyl
      • Fukushima
    • Nuclear Weapons
    • On The Bright Side
    • Radiation Exposure
    • Radioactive Waste
    • Renewable Energy
    • Uranium Mining
    • US Bombs Out of Germany
  • Quarterly Newsletter
    • Quarterly Newsletter
    • Newsletter Archives
  • Resources
    • Nuclear Heartland Book
    • Fact Sheets
    • Reports, Studies & Publications
      • The New Nuclear Weapons: $1.74 Trillion for H-bomb Profiteers and Fake Cleanups
      • Nuclear Power: Dead In the Water It Poisoned
      • Thorium Fuel’s Advantages as Mythical as Thor
      • Greenpeace on Fukushima 2016
      • Drinking Water at Risk: Toxic Military Wastes Haunt Lake Superior
    • Nukewatch in the News
    • Links
    • Videos
  • About
    • About Nukewatch
    • Contact Us
  • Get Involved
    • Action Alerts!
    • Calendar
  • Donate

April 2, 2018 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Grand Canyon Threatened by Federal Give-Away to Uranium Multinationals

Foreign Corporations Redraw National Park Boundaries

Spring Quarterly, 2018
By Kelly Lundeen 

If the water was to be contaminated, we believe that the existence of the Havasupai will disappear.
— Carletta Tilousi, Havasupai Tribal Council

We will stand and fight all the way.
— Russell Begaye, Navajo Nation President

The price of uranium is at its lowest in over a decade. Renewable energy production in the US has surpassed nuclear. So why is the Trump administration making it easier to mine uranium? Did the uranium mining companies ask politely? Let’s look at what the first year of Trump has brought uranium mining corporations.

Last March Trump issued an executive order requiring federal agencies to propose ways to remove “burdens” from the nuclear and fossil fuel industry. Use of federally protected lands was one area these “burdens” could be removed. Native American communities were not consulted regarding the “burdened” industries and the false, but common assumption was made, that the fate of federal land should be a matter of the United States government rather than its original inhabitants.

In November the Department of Agriculture responded to Trump’s order, in part, with a recommendation to lift the ban on new uranium mines near the Grand Canyon. The 20-year ban was put in place in 2012 after five years of campaigning by a coalition of tribal and environmental organizations. In December, the ban was upheld by the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, a move lauded the world over. However, uranium multinationals have not let the Grand Canyon out of their sight, and the Trump administration may still overturn the ban. On Dec. 20, less than a week after the ban was preserved, another executive order was issued to reduce reliance on foreign imports of “critical” minerals. A draft list of the minerals released in February included uranium.

The same day the Grand Canyon mining ban was upheld, there was a separate ruling against the Havasupai Tribe allowing the Canyon Mine, located on sacred ancestral Havasupai land to open only six miles from the Grand Canyon. The Canyon Mine, owned by a subsidiary of Energy Fuels Resources of Canada, began the licensing process before the ban was in place.

Energy Fuels had another success in December when Trump used the Antiquities Act to slash the size of Bears Ears National Monument (BENM) in Utah by 85%. (The simultaneous reduction in Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument was related to coal interests.) Although Secretary of Interior Ryan Zinke had stated that there was no mine within Bears Ears, the New York Times found 300 claims according to data from the Utah Bureau of Land Management. Just outside of the Monument’s newly drawn boundaries, about one-third of those claims are associated with Energy Fuels.

This is not surprising considering they openly lobbied for the reduction in the Monument and distributed maps to legislators carefully detailing areas they would like removed from protected status. In a letter to Secretary Zinke obtained by the Washington Post, Energy Fuels Chief Operating Officer Mark Chalmers spelled out the company’s areas of concern and added unabashedly, “There are also many other known uranium …deposits located within the newly created BENM that could provide valuable energy and mineral resources.” Despite the overwhelming support (98%) for maintaining or expanding the National Monuments demonstrated in public comments to the Department of Interior, a foreign mining company had more influence.

Communities on the frontlines and nationwide coalitions are actively opposing the special interests and are not giving up without a fight. To help resist Energy Fuel’s Canyon Mine and the transport of uranium is to take Haul No!’s Pledge of Resistance.

— Arizona Public Media, Feb. 6; New York Times, Jan. 13; CNN, Jan. 9, 2018; Energy Fuels Resources, Inc., & Washington Post, May 25; USA Today, Apr. 4, 2017

Filed Under: Environment, Environmental Justice, Newsletter Archives, Quarterly Newsletter, Uranium Mining

April 2, 2018 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Mining at Contaminated WIPP Resumes

By Kelly Lundeen
Spring Quarterly 2018
A heavy grinder gouges into a deep underground salt bed making room for plutonium contaminated nuclear weapons wastes at the damaged Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP), near Carlsbad, New Mexico. (Photo: Nuclear Waste Partnership, Inc.)

Resumption of mining at the Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP) on Jan. 15 this year is the latest move toward full-pace operation since reopening in January 2017. Last April the deep underground repository near Carlsbad, New Mexico began accepting shipments of plutonium-contaminated or “transuranic” waste (including tools, clothing, gloves, soil, and debris) from federal nuclear weapons production. WIPP is now receiving six waste shipments a week from decades of accumulated bomb-making material. The waste is placed in one of eight chambers mined 2,000 feet underground in an ancient bed of salt which can be removed at a rate of 10 tons per minute by a heavy gouging machine. The facility is still recovering from a Valentine’s Day 2014 accident that contaminated 140 workers, the mine, elevator and ventilation shafts, and surface equipment with plutonium dust when a barrel of waste burst or exploded after being packed at Los Alamos National Laboratory with the wrong type of cat litter.

The repository has yet to return to its previous level of operation. Several safety concerns have not been addressed. “Contaminated air is circulating through the facility, and being vented out. That’s not how it was supposed to be operated,” says Nuclear Waste Program Director Don Hancock of Southwest Research and Information Center (SRIC). The Mining Safety and Health Administration, a branch of the Department of Labor, reports 32 unresolved violations since March 2015 with no resulting penalties. Despite the violations, the facility was recertified by the EPA as “compliant” with waste disposal regulations in July 2017.

A return to full operations is expected by 2021 when the new ventilation system, estimated to cost $400 million, is complete. While that basic milestone has not been met, there are already six separate Department of Energy proposals for expansion and a Strategic Plan that exceeds capacity limits. The most recent proposal includes constructing an above-ground temporary storage pad and increasing the surface waste storage capacity seven fold. The Strategic Plan foresees storing 34,000 cubic meters (20%) more than the legal limit of radioactive waste.

— Current-Argus, Jan. 14, 2018; Associated Press, Dec. 11; Southwest Research and Information Center (SRIC), Sep. 29; Department of Energy, July 13 & Sep. 26, 2017  

Filed Under: Environment, Newsletter Archives, Quarterly Newsletter, Radioactive Waste

April 2, 2018 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Dismantling the EPA: 700 Flee Agency As Trump Nixes Regulations, Enforcement

By John LaForge
Spring Quarterly 2018

The first year of the Trump Administration has been devastating for environmental protection. As if pollution and graft made the country great, the Trump administration, Republican majorities and some key Democrats have been on a regulation-cancelling rampage, repealing rules on environmental protection, health care, financial services, and even internet accessibility. According the Dec. 15 New York Times, Trump’s military-industrial complex had revoked 67 rules, withdrawn 635 planned regulations, declared 244 rules “inactive,” and “delayed” 700 others. News reports in January indicated that Trump had bragged about repealing 22 regulations for every adopted new one adopted: 67 rules nullified against three new ones. Significantly, around Feb. 3rd, the Senate reversed the Stream Protection Rule that sought to protect surface water and drinking water sources from mining debris. A separate rule that required mining, gas and oil companies to report payments to foreign governments and aimed at punishing bribery, was also repealed.

On Jan. 15, nine of the 12 members of the National Park System Advisory Board resigned, the Washington Post reported, in protest over Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s refusal to meet with them. On Dec. 18, 2017, Trump announced that the government will no longer regard climate change by name as a national security threat.

The move is an abrupt reversal of the Obama administration’s position, which in 2015 described climate change as “an urgent and growing threat to our national security,” given its effects on natural disasters, conflicts over food and water, and refugee crises.

Also in December, EPA officials removed dozens of online resources available to aid local and state governments confronting climate change. The deletions were called “very alarming” by Adam Parris of the Science and Resilience Institute in New York who said, “These are the kind of resources it has taken years to develop.”

By Dec. 23, 2017, more than 700 employees of the Environmental Protection Agency had left the agency, and of them, over 200 were scientists, and 96 are environmental protection specialists, the New York Times reported. Thomas Burke, a former EPA science advisor told the Times, “The mission of the agency is the protection of public health. Clearly there’s been a departure in the mission.”

Filed Under: Environment, Newsletter Archives, Quarterly Newsletter

April 2, 2018 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Fukushima’s Triple Meltdowns, Seven Years On*

By John LaForge
Spring Quarterly 2018

March 11 marks the seventh anniversary of the Great Eastern Japan Earthquake and tsunami that killed over 18,000 people. The quake destroyed the foundations and pipes of the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear reactor complex, and caused a tsunami that crashed the site’s emergency back-up generators resulting in a “station blackout” and the world’s only simultaneous triple reactor meltdown. The consequent mass radiation releases, mass evacuations and mass contamination of the Pacific Ocean are unprecedented. Only the 1986 Chernobyl disaster compares to Fukushima, although its radiation was dispersed largely to the atmosphere rather than the sea.

One of the first books on the subject was Takashi Hirose’s Fukushima Meltdown: The World’s First Earthquake-Tsunami-Nuclear Disaster. This passage from the introduction is a reminder of the avoidable risks of operating nuclear reactors in earthquake zones:

“…the fact that there is no way of putting an end to earthquakes and tsunamis is … something that we must accept….

“However, the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Disaster is neither a natural disaster nor ordained by fate. It is a human-made disaster brought about by bad faith. Unlike natural disasters, which are beyond human understanding, this was easily predictable and preventable. The officials of Tokyo Electric Power Co. [Tepco] say things like, ‘We could not imagine that a once-in-a-thousand-years earthquake might come,’ and ‘The tsunami was beyond our expectation,’ but these are only obfuscations. A major earthquake accompanied by a nuclear power plant accident was—as I will show in detail—something very much within the realm of possibility, a possibility these officials arrogantly refused to consider.

“If I, neither a scholar nor a specialist, was able to foresee this, and the nuclear power specialists from Tepco and from the government’s nuclear-related agencies were not, then for what do they exist?”

Minister Opposes Ocean Dumping Contaminated Water in Pacific

Japan’s disaster reconstruction minister announced at a press conference last July 15 that he opposes dumping contaminated cooling water from the disaster-struck Fukushima Daiichi site into the sea, citing protests by local fishermen. While the minister has no control over how the waste water will be disposed, his comments came after several experts endorsed the ocean dumping.

About 770,000 tons of waste water has been collected in over 900 densely crowded tanks on site, and the amount grows by 150 tons a day. With limited acreage Tepco officials have said it can keep adding tanks only until 2020, and the tank farm is vulnerable to earthquakes that could spill the waste.

The water becomes highly radioactive when it is poured over wreckage inside the three reactors in order to cool the three masses of “corium”—the hot uranium fuel and its cladding melted into a giant mass that has partially burned through the foundations. Most of the water is then treated in an experimental process that removes many radioactive materials but not the tritium, the radioactive form of hydrogen.

Reconstruction minister Masayoshi Yoshino spoke shortly after Takashi Kawamura, chairman of Tepco Inc., which owns the reactors and caused the catastrophe, said in an interview that the decision to dump the contaminated water “has already been made.”

Kawamura’s remarks were widely condemned and a Tepco spokesperson made a retraction saying, “The chairman meant to say that the decision to release is not yet final.” Minister Yoshino also asked dumping advocates “not to drive (fishermen) further towards the edge,” alluding to concern among local fishermen about the effects on their livelihood if the fish and other marine products they catch were to be contaminated.

Misinformation About Tritium**

Reporting about the millions of gallons of radioactive waste water accumulating at the Fukushima site, major media have called tritium harmless. Kyodo News Service said last July: “Tritium is a radioactive substance considered relatively harmless to humans.” The London Independent said last November, “Treatment has removed all the radioactive elements except tritium, which they say is safe in small amounts.” The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) notes that these assertions directly contradict the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Fact Sheet on tritium. That fact sheet says tritium is one of the “least dangerous radionuclides” but reminds readers that “As with all ionizing radiation, exposure to tritium increases the risk of developing cancer.” IEER notes, “The established science is that there is no threshold for cancer risk of radiation and therefore no level of exposure is ‘safe.’”

High Radiation Levels Found Outside Reactors

Tepco still knows so little about the state of the deadly melted fuel inside the three reactors that the most the company could say in January about its latest remote-controlled probe inside Unit 2 was, “the radiation reading [8 Sieverts] was taken near what appeared to be fuel debris.” (emphasis added). The harsh radiation environment inside the wrecked reactors is so novel and deadly that robotic probes and containment equipment haven’t yet been devised and have to be invented whole cloth. Seven years in, Tepco hasn’t yet positively located the melted fuel debris inside all three reactors.

What surprised the January inspectors was a reading of 42 Sieverts per/hour “outside the foundations of the reactor.” Mycle Schneider, an energy consultant and lead author of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report, told the Independent, the company “hasn’t a clue what it is doing,” in decontaminating and securing the complex.

Richard Black, director of the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, said that the high radiation reading from outside the foundations is “more of a concern as the cause is at present unclear.” Schneider said more directly, “I find it symptomatic of the past seven years, in that they don’t know what they’re doing.”

* For a detailed review of the ongoing Fukushima catastrophe, see “Key figures for the seventh anniversary,” published Feb. 17 by the group ACROnique Fukushima. The group offers daily monitoring of events related to the current radiation disaster in Japan, and more.

** For an excellent analysis of the dangers of exposure to tritium, see author Dahr Jamail’s Aug. 2017 report “Fukushima Plant Is Releasing 770,000 Tons of Radioactive Water Into the Pacific Ocean.”

Filed Under: Environment, Fukushima, Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Power, Quarterly Newsletter, Radiation Exposure, Radioactive Waste

April 2, 2018 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

French Police Evict Dumpsite Opponents

Nuclear Shorts

Spring Quarterly 2018

Hundreds of French police were used in a surprise sunrise action to evict about 15 protesters living in tree houses in the forest of Lejuc near the village of Bure in Eastern France, a site that’s been targeted as a sacrifice zone for deep burial of radioactive waste. Two bulldozers and about 500 police in body armor also removed about 30 people occupying a nearby residence they’d dubbed the “House of Resistance,” arresting several. Although exploratory drilling has so far been prevented by protests, the area has been targeted for a 1,600-foot-deep dig-out to hide high-level waste fuel rods produced by France’s 58 nuclear reactors. The dumpsite location has not yet gotten final government approval. One protester, speaking on the phone before police moved against him, told Agence France Presse, “We are here because we don’t want the Earth to be poisoned. We are on this old oak tree which has lived far longer than us.”
—London Telegraph, AFP, and French RFI Radio, Feb. 22, 2018

Filed Under: Direct Action, Environment, Newsletter Archives, Quarterly Newsletter, Radioactive Waste

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • …
  • 67
  • Next Page »

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Subscribe

Donate

Categories

  • B61 Bombs in Europe
  • Chernobyl
  • Counterfeit Reactor Parts
  • Depleted Uranium
  • Direct Action
  • Environment
  • Environmental Justice
  • Fukushima
  • Lake Superior Barrels
  • Military Spending
  • Newsletter Archives
  • North Korea
  • Nuclear Power
  • Nuclear Weapons
  • Office News
  • On The Bright Side
  • Photo Gallery
  • Protect the Water Close Xcel's Monticello Reactor
  • Quarterly Newsletter
  • Radiation Exposure
  • Radioactive Waste
  • Renewable Energy
  • Social Issues
  • Sulfide Mining
  • Through the Prism of Nonviolence
  • Uncategorized
  • Uranium Mining
  • US Bombs Out of Germany
  • War
  • Weekly Column

Contact Us

(715) 472-4185
nukewatch1@lakeland.ws

Address:
740A Round Lake Road
Luck, Wisconsin 54853
USA

Donate To Nukewatch

News & Information on Nuclear Weapons,
Power, Waste & Nonviolent Resistance

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

© 2026 · Nukewatch