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

October 29, 2019 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Nuclear Governance in Canada: A Corporate Coup?

Nukewatch Quarterly Fall 2019
By Gordon Edwards

In November 2018, Canada’s Ministry of Natural Resources (NRCan) released a “Road Map” signaling its support for a group of multinational corporations, headed by SNC-Lavalin Corporation, to build, test, and deploy a new generation of nuclear reactors. [SNC-Lavalin is a $10 billion engineering, mining and nuclear conglomerate based in Montreal.]

There are no customers yet for these “Small Modular Nuclear Reactors” (SMRs), and the Union of Ontario Indians opposes them altogether. But NRCan wants them installed widely, mainly in the north, to accelerate resource extraction … and to replace diesel in isolated settlements including indigenous communities.

This is the brainchild of SNC-Lavalin and its partners, Fluor, Inc. and Jacobs Corp.

In 2015, Canada’s government under Joseph Harper put the consortium of the three corporations in charge of federally-owned nuclear facilities and Canada’s $8 billion radioactive waste liability. Billions of tax dollars have been pouring into its coffers via Atomic Energy of Canada, Limited, a government corporation…. Tasked with reducing Ottawa’s radioactive liability quickly and cheaply, the consortium—operating as Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL)—launched a series of alarming initiatives:

  • CNL proposes to pile on the surface one million cubic meters of mixed radioactive waste in a huge earthen mound 5 to 7 stories high, covering 11 hectares [27+ acres] at Chalk River, less than a kilometer from the Ottawa River. This scheme, a drastic departure from previous plans, flies in the face of international guidelines. It is opposed by 140 municipal resolutions including 82 from the Montreal region.
  • CNL plans to “entomb” the radioactive remains of two reactors beside the Ottawa and Winnipeg Rivers—dumping the reactors’ contaminated insides into the sub-basement, then flooding it with grout, creating permanent radioactive waste “mausoleums.” This approach violates promises that decommissioned reactor sites would be returned to “green field” status, and defies warnings against “entombment” by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
  • CNL is moving federally owned radioactive waste from Pinawa (Manitoba), Douglas Point (Ontario), Bécancour (Quebec), and Port Hope (Ontario) to Chalk River. Of the 2000 planned shipments, 500 are so radioactive that shipping containers must be shielded to protect drivers and the public from excess gamma radiation exposure. Fifty truckloads will carry the most highly radioactive material on Earth, irradiated nuclear fuel, from Pinawa, Douglas Point and Bécancour.
  • CNL is putting Canada’s federal nuclear sites at the disposal of the global nuclear industry, as testing grounds for an experimental Small Modular Reactor.

In effect, Canadian nuclear policy is being written by these private multinational corporations as a fait accompli, and Ottawa is complaisant.

“Canada does not yet have a federal policy for the long-term management of non-fuel radioactive wastes,” said Jim Carr, then NRCan Minister, in July 2018. We need one. Future generations require our diligence; other countries look to Canada for examples of responsible radioactive waste handling, transport, and long-term management. Government needs to take charge. Such decisions should not be left to corporate contractors.

The era of large nuclear reactors is over. Fewer reactors are operating today than 10 years ago. Projects for new reactors have ruined giant companies like Areva and Westinghouse. Nuclear energy’s share of global electricity production has plummeted from 17 percent in 1997 to 10 percent today.  The “Nuclear Renaissance,” ballyhooed since 2001, is a flop.

So how to keep the industry afloat? Maybe try manufacturing smaller reactors? But small reactors are more expensive per unit of energy; one has to sell hundreds or thousands of them to break even. Mass-production may partly overcome bad economics—but this brings its own difficulties. There are over 150 different designs for SMRs, each utilizing different fuels, different coolants, different moderators. The chance that any one design will corner the market and secure the sales volume needed to turn a profit is almost nil.

In July 2019, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commissions invited public comments on the first of several SMRs to be built at Chalk River—a high-temperature gas-cooled molten salt reactor with a graphite moderator, and pebble-like enriched fuel.

The age of nuclear power is winding down, but the age of nuclear waste is just beginning. Public consultations with First Nations and other Canadians are needed to formulate acceptable policies regarding the characterization, segregation, packaging, labelling, transport and long-term management of radioactive wastes. Meanwhile, CNL’s plans and SMRs should be put on hold, and the consortium’s contract should be cancelled.

— Gordon Edwards, PhD, is a Canadian scientist, nuclear consultant, and co-founder of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility.

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

July 16, 2019 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Bomb Test Fallout Spread Farther and Deeper Than We Knew

The Muir Glacier, in Glacier Bay National Park in Alaska, has undergone well documented and very rapid retreat. According to Wikipedia, from 1892 to about 1980, it retreated nearly 20 miles; and from 1941 to 2004, it retreated over 7.5 miles and thinned by over 800 meters or 2,600 feet. Ocean water has filled the valley, replaced the ice, and created Muir Inlet at right. Photos by United States Geological Survey.
Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2019
By Kelly Lundeen

From the South and North Poles, to the deepest ocean trenches, human-made radioactive material is being discovered in new places. Two recent studies reveal the distances that radioactive effluent and fallout have been dispersed. One international research team found radioactivity in all 17 glaciers they tested in both of the Earth’s hemispheres.

Another global study found the first evidence of fallout from bomb tests in marine life in the deepest place on Earth. With unabated production of radioactive waste, runoff, gases, and accidents, it’s no surprise to find it farther away and deeper than ever.

Fallout Found from High Glacier to Deep Ocean

The first study found measured amounts of radioactive cesium-137 and americium-241 in glacial sediments thousands of times greater than expected. “Our samples are exceptional in terms of the levels of fallout radionuclides that we find outside of nuclear exclusion zones” (contaminated “no-go” areas), said Caroline Clason, a member of the study team and a lecturer in Physical Geography at the Univ. of  Plymouth, UK. “We’re talking about weapons testing from the 1950s and 1960s onwards, going right back in the development of the bomb,” Clason told Agence France-Presse. “If we take a sediment core you can see a clear spike where Chernobyl was [in April 1986], but you can also see quite a defined spike in around 1963 when there was a period of quite heavy weapons testing.” While most of the fallout from Fukushima has yet to return to land, evidence is already appearing.

After an accident or explosion, radioactive particles travel through the atmosphere and fall to Earth as radioactive rain or snow. Radioactive particles in snow fall on glaciers settling into the temporarily stable environment. However, Clason warned, “we all know that glaciers are increasingly melting and that material has to go somewhere.” The study did reveal some good news: the unique glacial sediment where radioactive particles settle is very efficient at accumulating those contaminants and may provide opportunities for bioremediation.

As radioactive glacial sediments enter the ocean, it will affect marine life which has already been doused with radioactivity. That is the subject of “Penetration of Bomb Carbon-14 into the Deepest Ocean Trench,” published in April by the American Geophysical Union (AGU). (If carbon-14 sounds familiar, you may remember that it is used to determine the age of geological samples using carbon dating.) An AGU news release explains, “Thermonuclear weapons tests conducted during the 1950s and 1960s doubled the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere when neutrons released from the bombs reacted with nitrogen in the air.” Bomb test carbon has been recorded in marine life at the ocean’s surface since the late 1950s. As these animals die and fall to the ocean floor, deep sea crustaceans as far as seven miles (11 kilometers) below the surface of the Pacific Ocean in the Mariana Trench, feed on their remains and the radioactivity is passed through the food web. “However, the penetration of bomb [test] carbon-14 into the deepest fauna has not been reported until now,” the study said.

The amount of human-made radioactivity moving into the Pacific is mushrooming. New concern is being raised by the United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres over a leaking concrete dome built in the Marshall Islands. The concrete covers a large volume of radioactive debris that was collected from the detonation of 67 bomb tests done by the US, contaminating the islands and their people. Radioactive materials from the testing were pushed into an unlined pit and capped with the concrete. Mr. Guterres recently visited the islands, amplifying the voices of Marshall Islanders worried about radioactivity leaching into the ocean through the bottom of the hole, and the increasing potential for damage to the concrete dome by tropical storms.

From the depths of the oceans to the polar regions, more areas are being impacted by the radioactive legacy of humans, impacts accelerated with climate change which itself is rapidly accelerating.

—Sources: The London Sunday Express, May 19; American Geophysical Union, May 18 & 8, 2019; Agence France-Presse, May 16 & Apr. 10, 2019; CNN, May 13, 2019; Live Science, Apr. 15, 2019; European Geosciences Union April 10, 2019.

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

July 6, 2019 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Fukushima Disaster Response and Recovery a Vexing Radiation Colossus

Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2019
By John LaForge
Art by Mark L. Taylor for Nukewatch

Eight years into Fukushima’s 3-reactor catastrophe of earthquake, tsunami and meltdowns, and after the industry’s and government’s multiple recovery schemes, an overview is in order.*

The three reactor meltdowns at Fukushima-Daiichi caused the worst dump of radioactivity to the Pacific Ocean in history. “This event is unprecedented in its total release of radioactive contamination into the ocean” wrote Ken Buesseler of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution for PBS News Hour in March 2016. Buesseler has been recording Fukushima’s Pacific Ocean contamination since it started on 3/11/11. While Fukushima is often called the “2nd worst” radiation accident behind Chernobyl, Buesseler said, “More than 80% of the radioactivity from the damaged reactors ended up in the Pacific—far more than reached the ocean from Chernobyl.” Buesseler reported that this radiation gusher continues. “It is incorrect to say that Fukushima is under control when levels of radioactivity in the ocean indicate ongoing leaks, caused by groundwater flowing through the site and enhanced after storms,” he wrote.

  • “The worst airborne radiation spill in 25 years.”: Like the 1986 Chernobyl disaster that spread radiation across the Northern Hemisphere, Forbes reported March 28, 2011 that the US EPA recorded Fukushima’s radioactive iodine-131 in rainwater in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts at levels above what the agency allows in drinking water. The EPA’s air monitoring also found Fukushima’s radioactive iodine-131 in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Washington, and Nevada. Nothing close to this immense, hemisphere-wide radiation dispersal has happened since Chernobyl.
  • Japanese foods were tainted widely. Traces of radioactive cesium were found in a popular baby formula according to Japan Today, Dec. 7, 2011. Hundreds of thousands of babies may have eaten it before it was pulled from store shelves. The Japan Times reported April 22, 2011 that Fukushima’s iodine-131 was detected in the breast milk of women living near Tokyo, 150 miles from the meltdowns. The public demanded an investigation into the impact on mothers and babies. In April 2013, Japan’s Ministry of Health reported that levels of cesium-137 and cesium-134 found in produce and rice crackers 225 miles away from Fukushima “are high enough to cause residents to exceed the annual radiation exposure limit in just a few months, or even weeks.”
  • Fukushima is the world’s worst reactor disaster by volume of fuel melted and waste in cooling pools. Major reactor meltdowns at Santa Susanna in California (1959), Windscale in England (1957), Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania (1979), and Chernobyl in Ukraine (1986), involved a single reactor fuel inventory. Fukushima’s meltdowns involve three reactors full of melted and mangled fuel rods, and an additional 1,573 waste fuel rods in damaged condition in damaged pools of cooling water. The three masses of melted reactor fuel may never be recovered or containerized.
  • Fukushima caused the largest evacuation in the history of nuclear power: 160,000 evacuated from the zone first set at 12, and later expanded to 19 miles. (116,000 were forced to leave Chernobyl’s dead zone.) Two weeks after the start of the meltdowns, people from between 12 to 19 miles away were encouraged to “voluntarily evacuate.” The US government recommended that US citizens stay 50 miles away.
  • Of the colossal volumes of radioactive debris produced by the catastrophe, the New York Times provided this list in March 2017: 400 tons of contaminated cooling water produced every day since March 2011; 3,519 containers holding 60,000 tons of radioactive mud or sludge; 64,700 cubic meters of discarded protective clothing; branches and logs from 220 acres of deforested land; 200,400 cubic meters of radioactive rubble; and 3.5 billion gallons [17 million cubic yards] of radioactive soil. According to Greenpeace, 11 million tons of this radioactive soil is to be incinerated, which spreads airborne radioactive contamination in fly ash from smoke stacks, and leaves behind radioactively contaminated bottom ash in need of containment. (Will the consequently contaminated soil again be collected for re-incineration?)
  • The vexing problems of disaster response have seen ever-changing estimates of the amount of radiation released. The amount released to the air was “twice as large as previous estimates by research institutions both in Japan and overseas,” according to a Feb. 2012 report by the Meteorological Research Institute. The volume and variety of contaminated materials that have been collected for disposal is astounding. Greenpeace reported in December 2017 that while towns like Iitate and Namie had contaminated topsoil scraped off from populated areas, the problem remained because the soil removal left “islands … which are surrounded by forested mountains, for which there is no possible decontamination.” Consequently, cleaned-up areas “are subject to recontamination through weathering processes and the natural water and lifecycle of trees and rivers.” Because of how long cesium-137 persists in the environment, “this will be an on-going source of significant recontamination for … 300 years.”
  • The failure of the “ice wall,” designed to divert groundwater away from the three reactor foundations which were cracked open by the record 9.0 earthquake, means that hundreds of tons of water keep pouring every day into the wreckage of the reactor chambers. There the water is contaminated by contact with the masses of melted uranium fuel and either rushes out to sea or is collected for filtration in the failed Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS).
  • The notorious failure of the ALPS, which was intended to partially clean up highly contaminated cooling water and groundwater, means that possibly 1-million tons of waste water now held in 1,000 giant tanks near the coastline is not cleaned up at all, and must be filtered again by an as-yet-unknown method that needs to be designed and engineered from scratch. Meanwhile the tanks are vulnerable to another earthquake that could happen any time. One Japan Times headline on March 29, 2018 warned, “Seven years on, radioactive water at Fukushima plant still flowing into ocean, study finds”.

Detailed and well-documented reports by Greenpeace provide some of the best background and investigative information. See:

* Reflections in Fukushima: The Fukushima Daiichi Accident, Seven Years On, March 2018

* Nuclear Scars: The Lasting Legacies of Chernobyl and Fukushima, March 2016

* Fukushima Fallout: Nuclear business makes people pay and suffer, February 2013

* Lessons from Fukushima, February 2012

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

July 6, 2019 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Refusing to Report on Church Rock, “the worst incident of radiation contamination in the history of the United States”

Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2019
By Mark L. Taylor, Special to Nukewatch

Editor’s note: In New Mexico, the Church Rock Spill of July 16, 1979 has been called “the worst incident of radiation contamination in the history of the United States.” Catherine Caufield in “Multiple Exposures,” and Harvey Wasserman and Norman Solomon in “Killing Our Own,” reported that when the earthen dam holding radioactive uranium mine tailings burst, it released 93 million gallons of liquid wastes and more than 1,100 tons of solid wastes. “The wall of water backed up sewers and lifted manhole covers in Gallup, 20 miles downstream … and carried toxic metals … at least 70 miles downstream. … it left residues of radioactive uranium, thorium, magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, sodium, vanadium, zinc, iron, lead and high concentrations of sulfates.”

The 32nd anniversary of the Church Rock spill was observed July 16, 2011 with an awareness march starting from the site of the spill, 20 miles upstream from Gallop, New Mexico. Navajo Times photo by Paul Natonabah.

In 1978, I was a few years out of college when I stumbled into a job as the editorial cartoonist for The Albuquerque Tribune, which was part of the once legendary Scripps Howard chain of papers. At its founding in 1878 by E.W. Scripps, the company was a feisty force for progressive reform. By the late 1970’s, not so much.

Before loading up the U-Haul and heading off to the southwest an uncle of mine from San Antonio sat me down to make sure I understood just what the newspaper business was all about. Uncle Gary, a former journalist, was a very successful newspaper consultant and broker.

Full of dreams and inspired by the legacy of Scripps Howard’s most famous journalist, World War II combat reporter Ernie Pyle, I was eyeing my new career with a reformer’s heart.

“Yeah, so all that stuff about covering the news and getting to the truth is important, but never forget this,” uncle Gary said. “Bottom line, it is always a business and a business is about making money.”

“Yeah, I know that,” I said aloud, while inside thinking, “But journalism is a different kind of business.”

I settled into my new job with the passion of a religious convert, cranking out editorial cartoons and illustrations, and reading all I could about New Mexico, which one colleague described to me as, “Being as close as you can get to living in the Third World and still be in the United States.”

Where E.W. Scripps had once warned cub reporters about never trusting an editor who belonged to a country club, the corporation now not only provided the editor Ralph Looney with a membership to the most established country club in the city, but also a membership to the swanky Petroleum Club, perched atop one of the city’s tallest bank buildings.

Editor Ralph regularly went to luncheons at the Petroleum Club and would casually mention how he had enjoyed yet another lovely dinner at the club with this or that banker, oil company executive, or big wig with one of the nuclear labs.

On July 16, 1979 any lingering illusions I had about corporate media were sandpapered out of me. Reports were coming in regarding a massive flood of liquid radioactive waste from a breached uranium mine tailings evaporation pond. A “state of the art” earthen dam had collapsed and a veritable avalanche of radioactive sludge, heavy metals, acids and other toxins was roaring down the Little Puerco River (Rio Puerco), right through the heart of the Navajo Nation.

The Rio Puerco is a tributary of the Little Colorado River, which runs to the Colorado River, which feeds Lake Mead—a source of drinking water for Los Angeles.

Initial reports of what came to be known as the Church Rock Spill were fragmentary, but details were coming in about millions of gallons of toxic radioactive liquid waste gushing into the Rio Puerco; a virtual tsunami of nuclear industry poison. There were reports of sheep along the banks dropping dead and people falling ill. But, of course, far out on the “rez’” all of that was “out of sight.”

I was tracking the scraps of information coming across the news wire. A friend at United Press International phoned me tidbits he was hearing. I was worked up about the story but the news editors were coolly dismissive. Of course, if the same thing were happening to the Rio Grande flowing through Albuquerque I had no doubt the news room would have jumped into action.

I went to Editor Looney. Surely an old news hound like him could see the importance of what was happening out on the Navajo land. This was a big story, just what newspapers are meant to cover. He knew Navajo elders and artists in Santa Fe, so surely, he would do something.

But Editor Ralph took me into his office and shut the door. A small, portly man, he had to hunch forward on his elbows with his hands clasped before him on the cluttered desktop. He sighed and gazed unblinkingly at me. Then he cleared his throat and said quietly, calmly, “Mark, you have to understand, the nuclear industry built New Mexico. We will not be covering that story.” And, with the exception of a few follow-up wire stories buried in the back end of the paper, we didn’t.

By the time the dam was patched up, between 93 and 100 million gallons had gushed downstream, along with 1,100 tons of radioactive waste, sludge, acids and heavy metals including arsenic, uranium, thorium, radium, polonium, cadmium, and molybdenum. Due to the rugged, remote landscape, much of the clean-up had to be done by crews with shovels, rakes, buckets and wheelbarrows. Pockets of remaining radioactive waste dotted the dry landscape waiting to be moved along in the next downpour or blown about in the wind. Later studies found the toxic brew had seeped as much as 30 feet into the alluvial soils and groundwater. The rate of illness and death went up for those living along the Rio Puerco.

The Navajo Nation Tribal Government asked then governor Bruce King to seek federal assistance to clean up the colossal radioactive mess. King rejected the request. Again, the Albuquerque Tribune had other stories to cover.

Three years after the disaster, United Nuclear Corporation closed up operations and walked away. Now 40 years on, I know that the corporate media is still not to be trusted when it comes to covering the nuclear, or any other area of the energy industry.

As E.W. Scripps once wrote:

The press of this country is now and always has been so thoroughly dominated by the wealthy few of the country that it cannot be depended upon to give the great mass of the people the correct information concerning political, economic, and social subjects which it is necessary that the mass of people shall have, in order that they shall vote and in all ways act in the best way to protect themselves from the brutal force and chicanery of the ruling and employing class.

But that was a long time ago.

—Mark Taylor is an independent illustrator and cartoonist.

For more on the Church Rock spill see Radiation’s and Colonialism’s Permanent Stamp on New Mexico.

Filed Under: Environmental Justice, Newsletter Archives, Quarterly Newsletter, Radioactive Waste, Uncategorized

July 6, 2019 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Rogue Nuclear Waste Agencies Flouting Federal Law

Secret Cross-Country Plutonium Shipment Ignored US Law & Nevada Lawsuit

Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2019

With two recent actions, government nuclear power and weapons program administrators in the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission appear to have flagrantly disregarded federal and state law governing transport of highly radioactive materials in one case, and storage of it in another.

Sometime late last year, the Energy Dept. secretly shipped a half metric ton of weapons-grade plutonium from South Carolina to Nevada in defiance of Nevada’s public opposition and the National Environmental Policy Act.

In the face of near unanimous resistance from Nevada state lawmakers, and from past and present governors, the DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) secretly sent the extremely hazardous shipment across the country without notifying first responders or emergency preparedness officials in any city or state through which the plutonium passed, and without first completing an environmental impact assessment.

The NNSA acknowledged its clandestine transport during a court hearing in January. Former Nevada governor Brian Sandoval had filed a November 2018 lawsuit to prevent DOE’s shipment without first filing an environmental impact statement as required by the National Environmental Policy Act.

In a January 30 court filing, the NNSA claimed that its shipment of the plutonium was “before November 2018, prior to the initiation of…” Sandoval’s lawsuit. However, the agency refused to say exactly when the shipment took place.

The government’s admission that the plutonium was secretly shipped to the Nevada National Security Site 70 miles north of Las Vegas (formerly called the Nevada Test Site), outraged state politicians and other observers. The Associated Press reported that Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak was “beyond outraged by this completely unacceptable deception” and said he’s working with Nevada’s congressional delegation to fight back against the government’s “reckless disregard” for the safety of Nevadans.

The Mineral County Independent-News reported April 4, 2019 that Amber Torres, Chair of the Walker River Paiute Tribe, joined 12 Nevada tribal leaders in writing to President Trump and Energy Secretary Rick Perry protesting that the shipment was done without first informing state or tribal officials. The Tribe was “outraged that Federal officials … have shipped radioactive plutonium to Nevada in spite of the state’s vehement opposition to the idea and concerns that doing so opens the state up to further nuclear waste dumping,” Torres wrote.

The Nevada National Security Site is the “ancestral homelands of the Western Shoshone people,” said Arlan Melendez, Chair of the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, a federally recognized government in Reno, Nevada.

State lawmakers and Gov. Sisolak had demanded that studies be done regarding the chances and impacts of transport accidents, but were ignored by the NNSA.

Atomic Licensing Board Violates US Nuclear Waste Policy Act

A similarly crass trampling of environmental law was issued May 7 by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), an arm of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The Licensing Board was petitioned by Beyond Nuclear to dismiss the unlawful application for a permit, submitted by Holtec International/Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance (Holtec), to “temporarily” store 173,600 metric tons of highly radioactive waste reactor fuel rods in southeast New Mexico.

The petition to terminate Holtec’s application is based on the fact that the governing Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, forbids any transfer of the commercial reactor waste to a temporary or “interim” storage site, only to a permanent repository. Holtec could do this as a private enterprise, but the company wants the Energy Department to pay all its costs, and the industry is lobbying Congress to further amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.

In what Beyond Nuclear called “an astounding ruling,” the ASLB agreed that the application violates federal law, but it nevertheless dismissed the legal challenge on the ground that Holtec could be depended on not to implement the unlawful provision if the license were granted. “…the Board assumes Holtec will honor its commitment not to contract unlawfully with DOE to store any other spent nuclear fuel. Likewise, we assume DOE would not be complicit in any such unlawful contracts.”

Mindy Goldstein, a lawyer for Beyond Nuclear said, “Holtec, Beyond Nuclear, and the NRC all agree that a fundamental provision in the Holtec application violates the US Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Today the Licensing Board decided that the violation did not matter. But, the Board cannot ignore the mandates of federal law.”

The legal counsel has appealed to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) against the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) rulings in favor of Holtec International’s license application.

Filed Under: Environmental Justice, Newsletter Archives, Quarterly Newsletter, Radioactive Waste

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • …
  • 69
  • 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