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

December 19, 2021 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Novel Appeal Filed with the European Court of Human Rights in Nuclear Weapons Protest Case

Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2021-2022
By John LaForge

Two nuclear weapons opponents have filed a novel complaint with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasberg, France, alleging that German courts have unfairly refused to consider defense testimony from expert witnesses regarding the outlaw status of deploying US nuclear weapons in Germany.

On Nov. 11, 2021, Stefanie Augustin of Dortmund and Marion Küpker of Hamburg submitted the appeal through their lawyer Anna Busl. The ECHR will now decide whether to review the case and issue a ruling, or to deny it further consideration.

On Sunday, July 15, 2018, Augustin and Küpker were among eighteen people from four different countries who entered Germany’s Büchel air base, near Cochem, where approximately 20 US nuclear bombs are kept at the ready by the US Air Force’s 702nd Munitions Support Squadron. Seven of the activists came from the United States, six from Germany, four from The Netherlands, and one from England. In five groups, they clipped fences to enter the base and once inside some climbed onto a hangar where nuclear weapons may have been stored, and others read aloud to soldiers a warning about military and civilian laws that prohibit planning and preparing attacks using nuclear weapons.
Augustin said: “I took part in this action because it is the only way for me as a citizen to be able to take these state violations of the law to court. This includes the practice of Germany’s criminal nuclear participation in NATO. Since we have exhausted all national court appeals with our 14th constitutional complaint — which in our case was again rejected by the Federal Constitutional Court — we have appealed to the European Court of Human Rights for the first time.”

Küpker (a 2019 Aachen Peace Prize winner for the campaign “Büchel is Everywhere: Nuclear Weapons-Free Now!”) added: “International law is superior to federal German law. The courts should have examined whether we actually had sufficient and urgent reasons to draw attention to this state of emergency with such an action. Our requests to provide expert witness testimony were simply rejected by the courts. However, the courts are ordinarily obliged to examine questions of international and constitutional law. So the appeal is based on our ‘right to be heard’ under Article 6, Para. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and on our ‘right to life’ under the convention’s to Art. 2, Para. 1 having been violated in the local, regional and constitutional courts.”

The appellants argue further that the deployed US nuclear weapons violate the public’s “right to life” and thereby the European Convention, because the perpetual threat to use Büchel’s 20 US H-bombs in attacks launched by Germany’s Tornado jet fighters is routinely practiced in exercises including October’s “Steadfast Noon” rehearsal. The US bombs hang “like the ‘sword of Damocles,’” Küpker said, “because the credible threat of nuclear war is continuous, raises the chances of a global nuclear war, and makes Germany a target.”

Over the past two years, about 50 prosecutions for nonviolent “go-ins” at Büchel base have taken place in Cochem district court and in the Koblenz regional court. (Trial reports can be found here: www.buechel-atombombenfrei.de). And over the past 25 years, 14 appeals by nuclear weapons critics to Germany’s highest court, the Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe, have been rejected.

The July 15, 2018 action, and others in 2017 and 2019, were organized jointly by Nonviolent Action to Abolish Nuclear Weapons in Germany (www.gaaa.org) and the US organization Nukewatch. The Campaign Council of Germany’s nationwide support group “Abolish Nuclear Weapons – Start with Us!” — made up of over 70 organizations (www.atomwaffenfrei.de) — has declared its support this first-ever anti-nuclear movement appeal to the ECHR.

So, after decades of protests and resistance to the US nuclear weapons in Germany (there were as many as 7,000 during the Cold War), the appeal to the ECHR provides its judges a rare opportunity. Without having to condemn the United States’ hubris, hypocrisy, or destabilizing nuclear threat-mongering, the judges can simply reaffirm a defendant’s right to a fair trial court — a court that is unbiased enough that defendants are allowed to present expert witness testimony — and then urge the German courts to listen to it.

Filed Under: Direct Action, Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter, US Bombs Out of Germany

December 19, 2021 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Proposed US/UK Nuclear-Powered Submarines for Australia Jeopardize Health, and Escalate an Arms Race No One Can Win

Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2021-2022

A joint statement, excerpted, by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, the Medical Association for Prevention of War Australia, Medact UK, and Physicians for Social Responsibility USA, Sept. 21, 2021.

A total of eight nuclear-powered submarines sank because of accidents at sea between 1963 and 2003. Pictured is the Soviet submarine K-159, which sank on Aug. 30, 2003 during towing to dismantling, leaving nine dead. Photo: Bellona Foundation

Physicians in the countries involved in the proposal announced on September 16 — for Australia to acquire nuclear-powered submarines with UK and US assistance — are concerned this plan will jeopardize global health and security. Under this proposal, Australia would become the seventh country to use nuclear propulsion for its military vessels, and the first state to do so which does not possess nuclear weapons, or nuclear power reactors. These submarines are to be armed with sophisticated long-range missiles including US Tomahawk cruise missiles. These submarines would increase tensions and militarization across Asia and the Pacific region, fuel an arms race, and risk deepening a new cold war involving China.

The wrong decision at the wrong time

Humanity is in the midst of a major pandemic, and facing twin existential threats of dire urgency — global heating and the growing danger of nuclear war….
If ever there was a time to build goodwill and focus on cooperation to complex global problems rather than escalate military confrontation, that time is now. Our [countries] should focus not on escalating a new arms race with China, but on building peaceful cooperation with the government of the world’s most populous to address urgent shared threats.
Instead, this plan will raise tensions, make cooperation more difficult, drive proliferation of ever more destructive weapons, divert vast resources needed to improve health and stabilize our climate, and increase the risks of … armed conflict between the world’s most heavily armed states, risking nuclear escalation in which there can be no winners.

Spreading nuclear bomb fuel

… All UK and US nuclear-powered submarines use HEU [highly-enriched uranium] as fuel, which is directly usable in nuclear weapons…. Indeed their current naval reactor fuel is enriched to 93% and was originally produced for use in nuclear warheads. They have resisted and delayed efforts to convert their naval reactors to much less proliferation-prone, low-enriched uranium fuel, as France and China have done….
Precisely because of the proliferation dangers of naval reactor fuel, the US has previously gone to considerable lengths to thwart the spread of naval reactors, such as in the 1980s blocking Canada from buying nuclear attack submarines from France and the UK….
The quantities of HEU involved are large. As Sebastien Philippe from Princeton University has estimated, a fleet of between 6 and 12 nuclear submarines as proposed, operated for about 30 years, will require between 3 and 6 tons of HEU. The International Atomic Energy Agency stipulates that [55 lbs] of HEU would enable a nuclear weapon, even though US nuclear weapons are known to contain an average of only 12 kg of HEU.
So HEU fuel for the proposed Australian submarines would involve 120 to 240 times the amount of HEU as the IAEA stipulates is sufficient to build a nuclear weapon, and it could be out of international safeguards for decades. Philippe has aptly characterized this as “a terrible decision for the non-proliferation regime.” It discredits all three nations’ claims to support a treaty curbing fissile materials, and would make such a treaty harder to verify. …
This proposal needs careful independent scrutiny and strong new safeguard provisions to ensure Australia fulfills its obligations under both the NPT and the South Pacific Nuclear-Free Zone Treaty….
The UK announcement in March of a planned 40% increase in its nuclear arsenal [violates] its NPT obligations, as the UN Secretary-General has stated. The UK and US are modernizing their nuclear arsenals, both in [violation] of their 51-year-old legally binding NPT commitment to disarm….

Radioactive risk

Proliferation of submarines … with lifespans of several decades that are fueled by weapons-grade HEU will encourage uranium enrichment, wider use and storage of HEU, and will set back and make more difficult control and elimination of fissile materials.
Nuclear reactors on ships and submarines have been involved in numerous accidents. The risks of accident or attack causing release of radioactive material, combined with the targeting by adversaries of such vessels, including while they are in port, are why many cities around the world sensibly [forbid] visits of such vessels to their harbors….
Australia’s lack of nuclear scientific, engineering, management and regulatory capacity and experience will inevitably mean that more is likely to go wrong building and operating nuclear submarines. If something does go wrong with one of its nuclear submarines, the likelihood of it being quickly and effectively managed is reduced, and the risk of radioactive release in a port city or into the marine or coastal environment is increased….
These contribute substantially to the already widespread radioactive pollution resulting from naval reactors. The most recently reported fatal accident was a fire in a Russian nuclear submarine in 2019, that killed 14 people.
The radioactive waste from reactors poses a difficult and expensive problem: to manage health and environmental hazards for geological time periods. The governments involved in this proposal have been silent about disposal of the high- and intermediate level waste that would be generated. Despite many flawed and failed attempts at interim storage, Australia has no current plan for disposal of the much smaller amount of its … radioactive waste.

A step toward reactors and nuclear weapons?

Already, in the wake of the announced plans, there are mounting calls in Australia, including from some government MPs, for Australia to embrace nuclear power as well. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, Australia made active plans and preparations to acquire nuclear weapons. … Twenty nuclear weapons could be built from the amount of HEU fueling the nuclear reactor of each planned submarine.

The way forward

… Rather than escalating a nuclear-propelled new cold war, both the UK and US should make their people and the world truly safer by pursuing a verifiable and binding agreement with other nuclear-armed states to eliminate their nuclear arsenals. They should welcome and work towards joining the 2017 UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which provides the only internationally agreed, treaty-codified framework for the elimination of nuclear weapons. Naval nuclear propulsion, especially with HEU, should be phased out.
…Contrary to its support for the treaties prohibiting all other major types of inhumane and indiscriminate weapons and weapons of mass destruction — biological and chemical weapons, landmines, and cluster munitions — Australia opposes the TPNW.
The best way for Australia to provide surety that any nuclear-powered submarines would not be a stepping stone towards acquiring nuclear weapons, nor have any role in the possible use of nuclear weapons, is to join the TPNW. If it continues to refuse to do so, such concerns will remain well justified.
If Australia proceeds to acquire nuclear submarines, it should insist on LEU fuel, implement stringent safeguards, the submarines should be configured so that they cannot carry nuclear weapons, and nothing about their construction or operation should impede Australia joining the TPNW.
— For the full joint statement with signatures, see: https://www.ippnw.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/IPPNW-statement-Nuclear-Subs-letterhead-21.9.21.pdf.
— International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, was awarded the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize. In 2007, MAPW and IPPNW launched the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, which was awarded the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize.

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Power, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter

December 19, 2021 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

“Temporary” Storage Sites for High-Level Radioactive Waste from US Reactors Face Challenges

Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2021-2022
By Leona Morgan

The New Year will begin with one proposed “temporary” storage facility for high-level radioactive waste being fully-licensed, and another not far behind. The two “Consolidated Interim Storage” (CIS) sites are about 40 miles apart in the Desert Southwest: 1) the 40,000 metric ton Interim Storage Partners or ISP facility (also known as Waste Control Specialists or WCS) in Texas; and 2) Holtec Inc.’s 173,600 metric ton site — the world’s largest — in New Mexico.
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved ISP’s license application in September 2021. Don Hancock, Director of the Southwest Research and Information Center, expects that NRC will issue a license to Holtec in 2022. Hancock is convinced “that the NRC will issue these two licenses,” but, he explains, there are additional obstacles to be overcome, such as economic, political, and legal challenges. Therefore “the license approval is not the final decision.”
Both CIS license applications have been challenged in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals by regional groups, national environmental organizations, and one oil and gas company. In addition, the State of Texas is challenging ISP and opposes Holtec, while the State of New Mexico is fighting both Holtec and ISP.
Terry Lodge, an attorney representing community intervenors in both cases, estimates that oral arguments for ISP may be scheduled for late Summer 2022, with a final decision in early 2023. The case against Holtec has no hearings scheduled, but may move ahead if NRC issues the license.
CIS is a national issue, since opening a site would launch thousands of cross-country shipments of the deadly waste, so 2022 must be a year of anti-CIS action.
— Leona Morgan works with the Nuclear Issues Study Group in New Mexico.

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

October 20, 2021 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Nukewatch Quarterly Fall 2021

Click the links below to access articles from the Fall 2021 Quarterly Newsletter. Page numbers take you to the pdf of each page as they appear in the print version. Individual articles are also tagged by issue category.

Page 1

Regulators Approve Private Radioactive Waste Dump Critics, Texas State Law, and Court Challenge May Derail Plan
What Caused My Cancer? Radioactive Fallout in Baby Teeth May Provide Clues

Page 2

The National Radioactive Waste Coalition
NRC Conducting “Open Investigation” into Allegedly Counterfeit, Substandard US Reactor Parts, & Impossibility of Evacuating Seabrook
Nukewatch Joins Water Protectors to Honor Treaties, Resist Pipelines

Page 3

Disarmament Activists Confront US Nukes in Germany During Flooding: “Stop the Nuclear Catastrophe Before it Starts”
US Plowshares Activist Who Climbed Nuclear Weapons Bunkers Tried in Germany for Actions Against ‘Shared’ US H-Bombs

Page 4

A Little Radiation Is Not Good For You — NRC
How Long Does Reactor Waste Stay Deadly?

Page 5

Cancer & Infant Mortality Near Operating Reactors

Page 6

Rejection of US Hiroshima Bombing Mythology Long Overdue
Cyanide Poisoning in Hanford H-Bomb Cleanup: 57% of Workers Report Toxic Exposures

Page 7 Nuclear Shorts

Nuclear Power Rejected in UN Climate Report, and by COP26 Climate Change Conference
Hurricane Cut Off-site Power to Louisiana Reactor
Absurd: Navy Warships Named After Nonviolent Activists
Help Save and Improve Radiation Exposure Compensation Act
Fukushima Waste Water Update

Page 8

Wisconsin Reactors Set to Receive Second License Extension, Allowing 80-Year Run
Glyphosate, Roundup and Radioactive Waste
Retirement-Age Point Beach Reactors Court Disaster with Sirens Off, Engines Racing

 

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Quarterly Newsletter, Uncategorized

October 20, 2021 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Regulators Approve Private Radioactive Waste Dump Critics, Texas State Law, and Court Challenge May Derail Plan

Nukewatch Quarterly Fall 2021
By Beyond Nuclear

On September 13 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) granted a license for a controversial centralized storage site for high-level radioactive waste in west Texas, on the New Mexico border. If it’s ever opened, the site would concentrate up to 40,000 tons of the waste uranium fuel from nuclear power reactors across the United States in one place.

The firm Interim Storage Partners (ISP), a joint venture of Waste Control Specialists and Orano (formerly the French conglomerate Areva), intends to store the irradiated reactor fuel — euphemistically known as “spent” nuclear fuel or SNF, despite the fact that it is highly radioactive and lethal — in heavy dry storage canisters on surface concrete pads. If completed, it would be the first private high-level radioactive waste site in the United States. As Ari Natter reported for Bloomberg, “The waste can remain radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years.” [See: How Long Does Reactor Waste Stay Deadly? p.4]

A second centralized waste dump in New Mexico, 35 miles from the ISP site, and proposed by Holtec International, is also expected to be approved by the NRC. Holtec wants a license to store another 173,600 metric tons of waste fuel in partly buried canisters. Since the total volume of this waste fuel at US reactors is about 90,000 metric tons, experts have asked why the two sites would seek a combined capacity of 213,600 metric tons. One possibility is that waste from other countries could be imported by the for-profit dump projects. The government has previously done so, storing foreign waste at the Idaho National Laboratory in Idaho Falls, and, in 2018, testing the transport of a “mock SNF cask” shipped from Europe to Colorado.

Lucky this time. No radioactive waste was involved on Dec. 18, 2017 when an Amtrak passenger train jumped the tracks near Tacoma, Washington and slammed into Interstate 5. The recent approval of centralized nuclear waste storage in Texas could launch thousands of risky, cross-country rail, truck and barge shipments. Photo: Washington State Patrol/Twitter

Opening either of the Desert Southwest dumps would set in motion thousands of transport shipments of the high-level waste which would cross at least 44 states. The loaded canisters and transport casks are subject to radiation leakage and other failures that pose threats to thousands of communities along the transport routes.

“Transporting highly radioactive waste is inherently high-risk,” said Kevin Kamps, Radioactive Waste Specialist with Beyond Nuclear. “Fully loaded irradiated nuclear fuel containers would be among the very heaviest loads on the roads, rails, and waterways. They would test the structural integrity of degraded rails and bridges, risking derailments,” he said.

Kamps continued, “Even if the nation’s infrastructure is ever renovated, the shipping containers themselves will remain vulnerable to severe accidents and terrorist attacks, which could release catastrophic amounts of lethal radioactivity, possibly in a densely populated urban area. Even so-called ‘routine’ or ‘incident-free’ shipments are like mobile X-ray machines that can’t be turned off, in terms of the hazardous emissions of gamma and neutron radiation, dosing innocent passersby as well as transport workers.”

The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board recommends spending a minimum of a decade to develop better SNF cask and canister designs before attempting to transport irradiated nuclear fuel. Yet ISP expects its “Consolidated Interim Storage Facility” to open and start accepting shipments in the next few years. However, a lawsuit in federal court and near-unanimous opposition in the Texas legislature to importing spent nuclear fuel could upend ISP’s expectations.

Siting nuclear facilities is supposed to require the consent of the host communities, but Texas has made it clear on every level it does not consent. In September, prior to the NRC licensing of the ISP facility, the Texas legislature approved a bill banning storage or disposal of high-level radioactive waste in the state, and directing the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to deny state permits that the ISP project needs. The measure passed the Texas Senate unanimously, and passed the Texas House 119-3.

“This kind of bipartisan vote is very rare,” said Karen Hadden, executive director of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition. “The message should be loud and clear: Texas doesn’t want the nation’s deadliest nuclear waste and does not consent to being a dumping ground.”

Texas Governor Abbott signed the bill into law a week before the NRC’s license approval. After it, Gov. Abbot said on Twitter, “Texas will not become America’s nuclear waste dumping ground.” Before the Texas Legislature passed the law, opposition to the ISP project in Texas was widespread and vocal.

Abbott and a group of Texas Congressional Representatives wrote to the NRC opposing the project. Resolutions against importing the waste to Texas were passed by Andrews County and five others, as well as three cities, representing a total of 5.4 million Texans. School districts, the Midland Chamber of Commerce, and oil and gas companies joined environmental and faith-based groups in opposing the ISP project.

“I am thankful that the Texas Legislature voted to stop this dangerous nuclear waste from coming to their state,” said Rose Gardner of the watchdog group Alliance for Environmental Strategies. Gardner is a party in a federal court challenge to the dumps. Two lawsuits that could block both the ISP project in Texas and the Holtec project in New Mexico — on the grounds that they violate federal law — are currently pending in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Temporary dumps prohibited by federal law

Both dump proposals are based on the presumption that the Energy Department will “take title” to the deadly material as it leaves the privately owned reactor sites, and free its current owners of liability for it. However, the transfer of ownership from private hands to the federal government is specifically prohibited by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, as Amended, unless and until a permanent, deep dump site is open and operating — a prospect that remains decades away. The liability provision in the NWPA legally prevents “interim” storage sites from becoming permanent by default.

The Texas and New Mexico sites’ licensing processes have been approved in violation of the NWPA on the presumption that the law will be amended again.

“The NRC should never have even considered these applications, because they blatantly violate the federal Nuclear Waste Policy Act by assuming that the federal government will take responsibility [ownership] of the waste before a permanent repository is licensed and operating,” said Diane Curran, an attorney for Beyond Nuclear, one of the groups that brought the suits. “Licensing the ISP and Holtec facilities would defeat Congress’s purpose of ensuring that high-level waste generated by US reactors will go to a deep geologic repository, rather than to vulnerable surface facilities that may become permanent nuclear waste dumps.”

Now that the NRC has approved the ISP facility, the briefing phase of the federal Court of Appeals lawsuit is expected to begin. Participants in the legal challenge to the ISP and Holtec facilities are a national coalition of watchdog groups that includes Beyond Nuclear, the Sierra Club, the Austin-based SEED Coalition, and Don’t Waste Michigan.

Both lawsuits were also joined by Fasken Land & Minerals, Ltd., an oil and gas company, and the Permian Basin Land and Royalty Owners Association which promotes ranching and mineral rights.

“The grand illusion of nuclear power is now revealed,” said Michael Keegan of Don’t Waste Michigan.

“There is nowhere to put the waste. No community consents to accept nuclear waste — not Texas, not Michigan, or anywhere on the planet. We have to stop making it,” Keegan said.

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

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • …
  • 222
  • 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