— Despite scientific evidence and public opposition, Japan to start ocean wastewater discharge from Fukushima on June 12

admin , , , , , , , ,

TEPCO admitted that tritium (radioactive hydrogen) cannot be removed from the wastewater.

“When tritium gets inside the body, it’s at least as dangerous as any of the other radionuclides. And in some cases, it’s more than double as dangerous in terms of the effects of the radiation on the genetic material, on the proteins.”

— Timothy Mousseau, professor of biological sciences at the University of South Carolina,

From China Global Television Network

June 11, 2023

Japan plans to start sending seawater in an underwater tunnel built to release nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant on June 12, local media reported on Friday citing news from the plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO).

According to TEPCO, the tunnel has been filled with about 6,000 tonnes of seawater this week for a two-week test before releasing the nuclear-contaminated water from the plant to a point about one kilometer offshore.

Japan is likely to officially begin its plan to dump the nuclear-contaminated wastewater into the ocean as early as the beginning of July. So far, the implementation of Japan’s plan still needs to await the outcome of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) meeting in late June.

In spite of the damage to the marine ecology and environment, Japan unilaterally pushed forward the discharge plan and constantly made excuses for its claim that “nuclear wastewater is safe.”

However, the content of Cs-137 (a radioactive element that is a common byproduct in nuclear reactors) in the marine fish caught in the harbor of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant is 180 times that of the standard maximum stipulated in Japan’s food safety law, according to a statement released by the Chinese embassy in Japan on Monday, referring to data from a report released by TEPCO.

It also pointed out that there are more than 60 radionuclides, including tritium, carbon-14, cobalt-60, strontium-90 and iodine-129, in the nuclear-contaminated water. Some long-lived nuclides may spread with ocean currents and result in a bioconcentration effect, which will increase the total amount of radionuclides in the environment and cause unpredictable hazards to the marine ecosystem and human health. 

Continue reading →

— Global Times uncovers more lies on Japan’s move to dump wastewater; ‘unacceptable’ experiment with Earth’s future, says senior expert

admin , , , , , , ,

From Global Times

Xu Keyue and Xing Xiaojing
May 19, 2023

Although Japan suffered a lot from the atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII as well as the Fukushima nuclear accident in March 2011, the Japanese government has seemingly failed to learn from history and insists on dumping nuclear-contaminated wastewater from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the sea. The plan has continued to arouse opposition and skepticism at home and abroad.

Japanese lawmakers and international nuclear experts said in recent exclusive interviews with the Global Times that they are opposed to the dumping plan, stressing that this disposal is not the only way to deal with the nuclear-contaminated wastewater, and it is unacceptable to experiment with the future of the Earth.

Public opposition and recourse to the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Law of the Sea can be regarded as effective ways to prevent the Japanese government from insisting on pushing forward with the plan.

“I oppose the discharge of Fukushima nuclear-contaminated wastewater into the sea,” Junichi Tamatsukuri, Japanese lawmaker in Ibaraki Prefecture, told the Global Times.

Two nuclear accidents have occurred in and around his prefecture. The first was the Tokaimura critical nuclear accident in a small fuel preparation plant operated by JCO (formerly Japan Nuclear Fuel Conversion Co) in September 1999. The second was the Fukushima nuclear accident in March 2011. The two accidents severely affected the local economy, with consumers worried that food produced in Ibaraki contained radioactive substances that could harm their health. Many people have stopped visiting Ibaraki out of safety concerns.

“Local people from all walks of life have been working hard for years to recover from the economic losses caused by the two accidents,” Tamatsukuri said. “If the nuclear-contaminated wastewater from Fukushima is released into the sea this time, many industries such as fishing, agriculture, industry and tourism in Ibaraki Prefecture will be affected,” the lawmaker said.

Shaun Burnie, a senior nuclear expert at the Japan office of the international environmental organization Greenpeace, told the Global Times that the Japanese government and TEPCO have failed to explain their scientific justification for the discharge plan and have so far ignored the opposition of communities in Fukushima – especially the fishing communities.

Organically bound tritium (OBT) in the contaminated water is a “particular concern, because the amount to be discharged is on a vast scale,” said the expert who has been working on nuclear issues for nearly 40 years and radioactive waste discharge for more than 30 years.

“The Japanese government and TEPCO have deliberately miscommunicated on the risks of radionuclide tritium,” Burnie said. “They only focus on the external hazards, but the problem with tritium is when it is inside plants or seaweed, animals, fish or shellfish and humans,” Burnie said.

The scientific literature shows OBT has the potential to bio-accumulate and even potentially bio-magnify – as a slow energy radionuclide, when tritium is inside cells it can repeatedly damage the DNA structure. In this way, tritium is a much more dangerous radionuclide than the Japanese government and TEPCO have claimed, Burnie warned.

Continue reading →

— Global Times: Detailed evidence exposes Japan’s lies, loopholes in nuclear-contaminated wastewater dumping plan

admin , , ,

From Global Times

June 5, 2023
By Huang Lanlan

As the date for Japan’s planned dumping of nuclear-contaminated wastewater into the ocean approaches, a Pandora’s Box threatening the global marine ecosystem is likely to be opened. 

The Japanese government announced its decision on April 13 to release the nuclear-contaminated wastewater from the storage tanks at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the sea. Starting from 2023, the discharge is scheduled to last about 30 years. This decision has garnered widespread attention and sparked great concern across the globe.

While Japanese authorities are busy colluding with some Western politicians in boasting about the discharge plan, Fukushima residents, international experts in ecology, and various stakeholders around the world have kept calling for Japan to reconsider and modify its flawed plan.

Japan’s attempt to “whitewash” the Fukushima nuclear-contaminated wastewater release plan failed again at the Group of Seven (G7) summit in May. The joint statement of the summit did not explicitly state nor allude to the G7 members’ “welcome” of the current dumping plan due to strong opposition. Instead, it only reiterated support for the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) review of Fukushima’s treated water release.

An insider familiar with Japan’s dumping plan recently told the Global Times that he has many concerns and doubts about the plan. The insider provided detailed evidence exposing Japan’s lie that whitewashes its dumping plan. He also revealed many loopholes in the plan that the Japanese government and Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) have refused to talk about or even deliberately concealed from the public.

All provided evidence considered, it is apparent that, currently, Japan is incapable of properly handling the nuclear-contaminated wastewater dumping. The toxic wastewater processed by the Japanese side cannot currently meet international discharge standards, and the country’s reckless behavior, if not stopped and corrected in time, may cause irreparable damage to the global ecosystem.

“There are still many unresolved issues with the source terms of the Fukushima nuclear-contaminated wastewater,” the insider said. 

“If the Japanese government and TEPCO continue to have their own way, it may cause improper discharge of nuclear-contaminated water, and that must be taken seriously,” he noted, calling on the two sides to be open, transparent, and honest in solving the problem.

Disappointing data monitoring

Japan’s current plan of releasing nuclear-contaminated wastewater into the sea, though superficially reasonable at first glance, cannot hold up to close scrutiny. Its monitoring on the source terms of the Fukushima nuclear-contaminated wastewater is incomplete, and the data it collects is likely unreliable, observers told the Global Times.

In February 2022, the IAEA Task Force released its first report, the IAEA Review of Safety Related Aspects of Handling ALPS-Treated Water at TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. The report clearly stated that the Task Force “commented on the importance of defining the source term for the discharge of ALPS (Advanced Liquid Processing System) treated water in a sufficiently conservative yet realistic manner.” 

Source terms of contaminated water include the composition of radionuclide and the activity of simulation of nuclides dispersion. As the premise of marine environmental monitoring, the accuracy and reliability of the source term-related data is crucial. However, Japan’s data statistics and monitoring on the source terms are disappointingly full of loopholes. 

Firstly, the types of radionuclides that TEPCO monitors are relatively few, making it far from being able to reflect the correct radionuclide dispersion in the contaminated wastewater.

The Fukushima nuclear-contaminated wastewater, coming from the wastewater which was directly in contact with the core of the melted reactor, theoretically contains all the hundreds of types of radionuclides in the melted reactor, such as fission nuclides, a uranium isotope, and transuranic nuclide.

But TEPCO at first only listed 64 types of radionuclides including H-3 and C-14 as a (data) foundation for the works including monitoring and analysis, emission control, and environmental impact assessment. These 64 radionuclides did not include the uranium isotope and certain other α-nuclides, which have long half-lives while some are highly toxic.

TEPCO’s exclusion of the radionuclides mentioned above has greatly compromised the effectiveness of its monitoring work, as well as the credibility of its environmental impact assessment result, the insider stressed.

As for sampling and monitoring, TEPCO initially only sampled and monitored nine nuclides in the nuclear-contaminated water except tritium, including Cs-134, Cs-137, Sr-90, C-60, Sb-125, Ru-106, I-129, Tc-99, and C-14 (as well as gross α and gross β).

“TEPCO’s plan of only monitoring a few types of radionuclides is unscientific,” the insider told the Global Times.

Later, during the review process of the IAEA Task Force in 2022, TEPCO changed the number of radionuclide types it was monitoring and analyzing to 30, and then decreased it to 29 this year. This is far from enough to provide a complete assessment of the extremely complex nuclides in the Fukushima nuclear-contaminated wastewater.

Secondly, there are missing activity concentration values for multiple radionuclides in TEPCO’s monitoring scheme.

TEPCO’s public report on the 64 radionuclides only provides activity concentration values for 12 radioactive nuclides other than tritium, while over 50 other nuclides do not have specific activity concentration values. The report, while only offering gross α and gross β values, doesn’t disclose the respective concentration levels of many highly toxic radionuclides in the Fukushima nuclear-contaminated wastewater, such as Pu-239, Pu-240 and Am-241. 

“[TEPCO’s] current plan only monitors some of the nuclides and the gross α and gross β values, which cannot accurately indicate the fluctuations or changes in the activity of each nuclide after treating the contaminated wastewater due to the fluctuation of the nuclide source term composition,” said the insider. 

This operation of TEPCO has largely increased the uncertainty of the [nuclide] source item information of the nuclear-contaminated wastewater, and thus greatly increases the difficulties of making subsequent monitoring plans and marine ecological environmental impact assessment, he added.

Thirdly, TEPCO didn’t make conservative assumptions in many aspects of its monitoring data, and some of the assumptions it made were somewhat “negligent.”

In the process of treating the nuclear-contaminated wastewater, the slight particle shedding of chemical precipitants and inorganic adsorbents in the ALPS may cause some radionuclides to exist in a colloidal state, the insider explained.

Therefore, TEPCO’s assumption that all nuclides in nuclear-contaminated wastewater in the ALPS are water-soluble is obviously invalid, said the insider. “TEPCO should scientifically and comprehensively analyze whether colloidal nuclides are present in the nuclear-contaminated wastewater based on the long-term operation experience of its ALPS system,” he noted.

Continue reading →

— Tell U.S. Senators to Stop S.1111: The ADVANCE Act of 2023 

admin , , ,

From NIRS.org

Take a stand against a new bill that keeps US taxpayers on the hook for the full costs of nuclear disasters and promotes nuclear energy worldwide. S. 1111, the ADVANCE Act of 2023, is a comprehensive pro-nuclear bill that includes a host of provisions propping up the nuclear industry, including renewing the Price-Anderson Act. 

The most dangerous aspect of the bill is the renewal of the Price-Anderson Act, a 1957 law which caps the industry’s liability for nuclear disasters at only $13 billion. The Price-Anderson Act makes US taxpayers liable for the full costs of nuclear disasters – which could run into the hundreds of billions of dollars – and exempts the insurance industry from covering homeowners and businesses for damages from those disasters. 

The nuclear industry claims that nuclear energy has an impeccable safety record and that the new “advanced” reactors under development are  “inherently safe” and disaster-proof. If that’s true, they shouldn’t need taxpayers to continue being their insurance company.

The provisions included in S. 1111 would deepen the radioactive waste crisis and waste federal dollars on nuclear development, Let your Senators know that S. 1111 is bad news for US taxpayers and further entrenches the status quo of dirty, dangerous, and expensive nuclear power in the country and abroad.

Tell your U.S. Senators to Protect Taxpayers from the High Costs of Nuclear Power and STOP S.1111

To send a letter to your senator at https://nirs.salsalabs.org/S1111ADVANCEACTSenateAlertMay2023/index.html

Text of letter (which you can personalize)

Please oppose S. 1111, the ADVANCE Act of 2023. S. 1111 keeps US taxpayers on the hook for the full costs of nuclear disasters by renewing the Price-Anderson Act and provides for comprehensive support for the nuclear industry.

The most dangerous aspect of the bill is the renewal of the Price-Anderson Act, a 1957 law which caps the nuclear industry’s liability for nuclear disasters at only $13 billion. The Price-Anderson Act makes US taxpayers liable for the full costs of nuclear disasters – which could run into the hundreds of billions of dollars – and exempts the insurance industry from covering homeowners and businesses for damages from those disasters.

The nuclear industry claims that nuclear energy has an impeccable safety record and that the new “advanced” reactors under development are “inherently safe” and disaster-proof. If that’s true, they shouldn’t need taxpayers to continue being their insurance company.

S. 1111 is bad news for US taxpayers and further entrenches the status quo of dirty, dangerous, and expensive nuclear power in the country and abroad. Nuclear power is not a solution to the climate crisis. In fact, investments in nuclear power take away from desperately-needed development of a clean, just, and affordable energy system. S. 1111 is a costly distraction from climate solutions and a just transition. Please oppose S. 1111 and stop the unwieldy, unsafe, expensive, and internationally unstable advancement of nuclear power. Above all, don’t perpetuate the insurance fraud of the Price-Anderson Act by renewing the law and burdening taxpayers with the full brunt of nuclear disaster costs.

Thank you.

– – – –

https://nirs.salsalabs.org/S1111ADVANCEACTSenateAlertMay2023/index.html

For other news updates, go to NIRS.org

— California: Oppose AB 65 allowing small modular nuclear reactors

admin

AB 65L Energy: nuclear generation facilities.
https://legiscan.com/CA/bill/AB65/2023

From Mothers for Peace and NIRS

On Monday, April 10, 2023, the California Assembly Committee on Natural Resources held a hearing on AB 65, a bill that would overturn California’s longstanding ban and open the state up to massive amounts of new nuclear waste. The bill would allow the construction of “small” modular reactors (SMRs) – reactors that have higher risks and produce more waste than conventional reactors – and would direct the Public Utilities Commission to create a plan to increase nuclear power generation in the state.

The bill failed, but it was granted reconsideration.

Since 1976, California’s Nuclear Safeguards Act has barred new nuclear plants unless and until there is a permanent solution for the disposal of the radioactive waste produced by reactors, which is dangerous for ten thousand generations. Today, there is still no such solution for this extremely toxic waste. Nonetheless, AB 65 seeks an exemption to California’s nuclear ban, allowing many new nuclear power plants to be built and setting the stage for a nuclear power resurgence in California.

>> Urge your state senator and assemblymember to oppose AB 65.

https://nirs.salsalabs.org/AB65Californiaalert4523/index.html

https://mothersforpeace.org/take-action-now-to-oppose-ab-65/

— Paper: Advanced transmutation process and its application for decontamination of radioactive nuclear wastes, Michrowski and Porringa

admin , , , , , ,

Complete paper

Proceedings of Congress 2000

University of Alberta

Edmonton, May 29-30, 2000

Advanced transmutation process

and its application for the decontamination of radioactive nuclear wastes

Andrew Michrowski [1] and Mark Porringa [2]

Abstract: There are deviations to the standard model of radioactive atomic nuclei decay reported in the literature. These include persistent effects of chemical states and physical environment and the natural, low-energy transmutation phenomena associated with the vegetation processes of plants. The theory of neutral currents is proposed by Nobelist O. Costa de Beauregard to account for the observed natural transmutations, also known as the Kervran reaction. “Cold fusion” researchers have also reported anomalies in the formation of new elements in cathodes. This body of knowledge provides the rationale for the observed and successful and developed advanced transmutation processes for the disposal of nuclear waste developed by Yull Brown involving a gas developed by him with a stoichiometric mixture of ionic hydrogen and ionic oxygen compressed up to 0.45 MPa. The radioactivity in samples decreases by up to 97%, rapidly, simply and at low cost.

– – –

[1] President, The Planetary Association for Clean Energy, Inc, 100 Bronson Avenue, #1001, Ottawa, Ontario K1R 6G8, Canada. (613) 236-6265; fax: (613) 235-5876.

[2] Zeropoint Research, RR#1, Deep River, Ontario K0J 1P0, Canada. (613) 584-2960; fax: (613) 584-4616

For more information: https://pacenetwork.org/

— Alternative nuclear waste treatment and remediation — the way forward

admin , , , , ,

[Note: New website https://pacenetwork.org/]

PDF — Letter and annexes

From Planetary Association for Clean Energy, Inc.
Bronson Avenue, Suite 1001
OTTAWA, Ontario K1R 6G8, Canada
(613) 236-6265 / fax: (613) 235-5876
paceincnet[at]gmail.com / http://www.pacenet.homestead.com
An international collaborative network of advanced scientific thinking NGO in Special Consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC)

May 7, 2018

Greg Fergus, MP, PC
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development

Hon. Greg Fergus,

First of all, I wish to thank you for organizing the March 5 Town Hall Meeting, Forum on Chalk River at UQO in your riding. Some of our associates were thus able to exchange with the qualified interveners and to affirm professional observations. This keynote event has led to meeting you with our colleagues on April 5th on the interdisciplinary theme of clean soil, water and responsible waste management, with an emphasis on alternative nuclear waste treatment and remediation. We note from the April 12 Government of Canada announcement of the launching of an Expert Panel on Sustainable Finance to enable clean growth an impetus and opportunity for innovative and remunerative rectification of a costly and hurting long-term state of affairs.

In our group meeting with you, we underlined a priori, based on 50 years of hands-on executive experience with landfills that, even in the cases of well-conceived and engineered designs, contaminants, quite toxic, end up deleteriously in soil and in water.

The very concept of landfill is illogical: it implies that all materials (in this case, aging barrels and containers, instruments, rods, construction debris, etc.) are lumped together, with no certainty nor predictability of what can happen between the contaminants. In this case, as well, one does not see a Hazard and Operability Study (HAZOP) methodology of considering everything that could possibly go wrong (used in software research). It applies to complex ‘processes’ such as nuclear waste whereby sufficient predictable and explicitly-identified information is available.

Our first suggestion is that nuclear waste be separated and segregated at source, and in sequence of decommissioning. This is also helpful for alternative on-site, real-time decontamination. One treats to radioactive depletion components such as rods as they are assessed and retrieved, at near range – without hazard to workers, with robotics ; one treats liquids, facility equipment items, structural remains, etc. specifically and with appropriate and the most efficacious technology and protocols than are pre-tested first for their ability to reduce as quickly as viable radioactivity levels.

Our second suggestion is to focus on methodologies that are not only much more affordable, with more immediate applicability in terms of timelines but also those than can lead to productivity and rapid returns on capitalization by offering options for stocks of not only commodities but also of rare earth elements.

The interest of PACE goes back to the demands of its co-founder, scientist Senator Chesley W. Carter who aspired that Canada avoid nuclear energy facilities that were imposed as a result of the energy crisis of the 1970s, by embarking instead on less expensive and less uncertain advanced clean energy production technologies that were then being considered, and since peer-reviewed internationally with the participation of our collaborative network, which includes Nobelists. (See the Annexes.)

Retrospectively, a comptroller exercise shows that had the National Research Council of Canada (under pressure from the U.S. Secretary of State) not contradicted the July 1976 initiative by the Rt. Hon. Pierre E. Trudeau, prime minister to embark on the clean energy path suggested by Senator Chesley W. Carter as spokesperson for our collaborative network, Canada would have probably remained with a deficit-less national budget, and free of need of GST taxation. This repudiation led to the massive federal subsidy of the nuclear energy programme in Ontario and the expensive maintenance of status quo with regards to oil & gas, several megaprojects in a response to the then energy crisis due to rise in oil prices.

We propose that an initiative been undertaken to develop a matrix, on the basis of a full testing in appropriate nuclear licensed facility in Canada to determine which currently described and, additionally other promising and peer-reviewed accelerated and radioactivity-depleting nuclear waste remediation systems and protocols are most adapted and optimised for their logistical decontamination with due regard to the environmental and hazards issues.

We do hope that this communication enables risk-free and enhanced-economic viability for Canada.

Dr. Andrew Michrowski, President
Joseph Kennedy, P.Eng. , Director

Full document with annexes

Planetary Association for Clean Energy, Inc.
https://pacenetwork.org/

— Alert: H.R. 1 would gut environmental laws — Earthjustice

admin , , , , ,

Provisions in the bill includie would waiving nuclear waste restrictions. Oppose H.R. 1

SIGN LETTER BELOW

From Earthjustice

The House of Representatives is bringing H.R. 1, the Polluters over People Act, to the floor next week. Join this community sign on letter opposing this polluter giveaway that would exacerbate the climate crisis, perpetuate environmental injustices, and undermine U.S. economic and national security by prolonging reliance on risky and volatile energy sources. Its sweeping changes to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Mineral Leasing Act, the Mining Law of 1872, and the Clean Water Act prioritize polluter profits over the public health and exhibits an astonishing disregard for government accountability and the voices and welfare of communities impacted by federal decisions.

DEADLINE NOON EASTERN ON MONDAY, MARCH 27

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSd6x6ourj6V8E_poQYweda7ILiA79ipD_82CbY32Z8_u_9Jzg/viewform

Community Sign On: Oppose HR 1

DEADLINE NOON EASTERN ON MONDAY, MARCH 27

The House of Representatives is bringing H.R. 1, the Polluters over People Act, to the floor. Join this community sign on letter opposing this polluter giveaway that would exacerbate the climate crisis, perpetuate environmental injustices, and undermine U.S. economic and national security by prolonging reliance on risky and volatile energy sources. Its sweeping changes to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Mineral Leasing Act, the Mining Law of 1872, and the Clean Water Act prioritize polluter profits over the public health and exhibits an astonishing disregard for government accountability and the voices and welfare of communities impacted by federal decisions.

Organization Sign on Deadline: Monday, March 27, 12 PM Eastern. We will only display organization name, not individual staff names.

March 27, 2023

Re: Vote Recommendation on H.R. 1, the “Lower Energy Costs Act”

Dear Representative,

On behalf of our millions of members and supporters, the undersigned organizations write to express our strong opposition and to urge you to vote NO on H.R. 1, the so-called “Lower Energy Costs Act,” which the House will take up next week.

This legislation would exacerbate the climate crisis, perpetuate environmental injustices, and undermine U.S. economic and national security by prolonging reliance on risky and volatile energy sources. Its sweeping changes to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Mineral Leasing Act, the Mining Law of 1872, and the Clean Water Act prioritize polluter profits over public health and exhibit an astonishing disregard for government accountability and the voices and welfare of communities impacted by federal decisions.

Division A

Division A would encourage new fossil fuel production and infrastructure, despite the scientific consensus that there is no room for investment in new fossil fuel production if we are to keep the world on a 1.5°C compatible pathway. It would also undermine bedrock environmental laws, including NEPA, by short-circuiting permitting processes and limiting public input. NEPA is a critical environmental law and an important tool for frontline and environmental justice communities to influence federal infrastructure projects that will impact them the most.

Division A’s most egregious provisions:

  • Repeal the Methane Emissions Reduction Program created by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). This critical program supports efforts to reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, improve methane monitoring, fund environmental restoration, and help communities reduce the health impacts of pollution.
  • Undercut public transparency and input from communities by arbitrarily limiting the time for environmental reviews. The bill alters the approval process for gas pipelines by requiring all other federal and state agencies to defer to FERC.
  • Strip away the federal government’s responsibility to examine the full impacts of LNG expansion on US energy markets, the environment, and local communities. It would make it easier to approve LNG exports by removing the first three sections of the Natural Gas Act, which require a public interest determination for LNG exports to non-FTA countries and by mandating that FERC deem gas exports in the public interest. LNG exports negatively impact Americans by exacerbating climate change, raising domestic energy prices, and perpetuating environmental injustices, and these factors need to be taken into account when deciding whether to approve additional LNG export terminals.
  • Authorize the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to waive the Clean Air Act (CAA) and Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) requirements for waste produced by certain energy facilities. Exempting energy waste potentially including everything from fracking wastewater to mine processing facilities and tailing sites to nuclear facilities from these laws threatens the health of people in frontline communities, as well as our air and water. The waste from energy production are some of the most threatening products and sites, and often they exist for hundreds of years, even in perpetuity, which is part of the reason why the Superfund program is overwhelmed.
  • Undermine the Toxic Substances Control Act by short circuiting the review and approval process for new chemicals used in the energy sector, whether that is for fracking, petrochemicals, mining or dozens of other products. This rushed and weak assessment, which would lead to default approvals, would result in the blind rubber-stamping of chemicals for use in energy that have deleterious impacts on human health and the environment. Virtually any chemical that plays a role in the production, refining, distribution, and use of energy could be designated as “critical” by the Department of Energy.
  • Allow the EPA Administrator to circumvent the scientific process of approving or denying flexible air permitting at the agency. Doing so could potentially allow the EPA Administrator to increase air pollution from so-called “critical energy resource facilities,” subsequently harming environmental and public health. A broad spectrum of facilities that emit toxic air pollution could evade scrutiny for health impacts, including processing and refining products of oil, gas, coal, minerals, and fertilizers.
  • Modify the organization of the Department of Energy, taking the authority on many issues and processes that are vital for the protection of communities, air, lands, and water away from those who have the expertise in understanding the potential impacts of extraction and production, whether that is the Department of Interior (DOI) or Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In doing so it makes the only metric for consideration economic, which would mean that communities, lands, and waters would be sacrificed.

This Division also contains a provision purporting to support domestic supplies of  “critical minerals,” but in reality creates a new legislated term–“critical energy resources–which the majority has defined to mean virtually anything related to the energy sector, whether that is oil and gas, coal, petrochemicals or nuclear production, mineral processing, and refining. 

Other notably problematic provisions in the remainder of Division A would:

  • Prohibit the President from issuing a moratorium on fracking unless authorized by Congress. Fracking releases massive amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that has more than 80 times the power of carbon dioxide over a 20-year period, driving approximately one quarter of the warming our planet has experienced to date. Fracking also harms local communities and ecosystems by releasing air pollutants and contaminating water sources
  • Exempt certain energy facilities from requirements to secure an interim permit before operating, instead allowing the facilities to operate before securing such a permit. The result could be the release of harmful pollutants into our air and water, threatening the environment and health of people in frontline communities. The facilities that could receive a permit without an accurate assessment of their impact include everything from radioactive waste to petrochemicals to fertilizer to mining waste, all extremely toxic industries.
  • Express disapproval of President Biden revoking the Presidential Permit for Keystone XL pipeline. If built, Keystone XL would have carried 830,000 barrels per day of the dirtiest oil on the planet, threatening our climate, farmland, critical water resources, and wildlife habitat along the pipeline’s path.

Express the sense of Congress that the federal government should not restrict the export of crude oil or other petroleum products. Increased oil drilling and exports have enormous climate repercussions and pollute communities and ecosystems. They also open U.S. consumers to the whipsaw effects of geopolitical tensions and conflicts, creating energy instability and often driving significant increases in energy pricesThe federal government must ensure that these exports do not compromise US climate and environmental justice goals or undermine our global climate leadership.

Division B

Title I would take us in the wrong direction on onshore and offshore oil and gas leasing. It would lock in decades’ worth of fossil fuel infrastructure, preclude protections for millions more acres of public lands, split estates, and offshore waters, and handcuff the Biden Administration’s ability to address the climate crisis through thoughtful management of our shared public resources. Like many recent proposals from the present House majority, it attempts to further prop up the federal fossil fuel program despite rising (and record) production, and industry’s existing access to tens of millions of acres of our shared public spaces and thousands of approved and unused permits to drill on federal lands and in offshore waters.

To start, Title I:

  • Mandates leasing onshore and offshore, eviscerating long-standing precedent that defers leasing decisions to the President and the Secretary of the Interior
  • Rushes oil and gas drilling permits through the environmental review process with zero regard for community input, effects on endangered species, or emissions consequences
  • Exempts as many permitting decisions from the federal review process as possible
  • Severely restricts the President’s authority to protect specific lands with natural, cultural, or scientific significance
  • Repeals the hard-fought common-sense reforms to the outdated oil and gas leasing program that were enacted in the Inflation Reduction Act to ensure that industry pays a fairer share when reaping—and profiting from —shared, public resources

Title II, which incorporates the BUILDER Act, would eviscerate NEPA and fundamentally gut the review of environmental, health, and economic impacts of decisions by over 80 agencies in the federal government. If passed, local community voices would be silenced, the public would be essentially unable to hold the federal government accountable, and polluting industries would be allowed to steer a review process designed to be in the public, not private, interest.

The ways this bill would radically undermine informed government decision-making and accountability are too numerous to detail here, but a few merit particular attention:

  • Dramatically Narrows Application of NEPA and Limits the Scope of Reviews – The bill would radically limit the application of NEPA by redefining the threshold consideration of what is a “major federal action” for the purposes of NEPA. Further, the bill excludes oil and gas gathering lines, federal loans, projects not occurring on federal lands, loan guarantees, and other forms of financial assistance from NEPA, which could potentially allow projects such as offshore oil and gas development, coal fired generating facilities, LNG projects, nuclear facilities, roads, bridges, highways, and concentrated animal feeding operations to evade any review or public scrutiny. For reviews that do occur, it relieves agencies of any responsibility to undertake any new research necessary for informed decision making and potentially prevents the consideration of upstream and downstream impacts of decisions, thus codifying climate denial into federal decisions.
  • Essentially Eliminates Judicial Review – In addition to reducing the statute of limitations to a mere 120 days, the bill would bar legal challenges to categorical exclusions as well as many environmental assessments. For the few remaining projects subject to judicial review, injunctive relief would be prohibited, thus ensuring that projects move forward regardless of how egregiously deficient a review or harmful the impacts of a project on a community or the environment.
  • Allows Inherent Conflicts of Interests In Review – The bill would allow project sponsors to prepare their own environmental reviews, thus eliminating objective analyses about the environmental and related social and economic effects of federal actions and institutionalizing bias in the review process. This potentially undermines the entire purpose of NEPA to have federal agencies make informed, unbiased decisions in the public interest.
  • Prioritizes Project Sponsors Over the Public Interest – The legislation not only would impose arbitrary timelines on reviews but would also prohibit an agency from extending the time if needed to do essential scientific work or to accommodate public comment, unless the project sponsor agrees. Further, the bill would severely narrow what has long been considered the “heart” of the NEPA process, by prioritizing consideration of alternatives that meet the project sponsor goals.

Finally, Title III would exacerbate deficiencies in the existing 151-year-old mining law, result in an unnecessary increase in mining on federal public lands, and put at risk irreplaceable protected lands, special places, endangered and sensitive wildlife, tribal sacred sites, and culturally significant sites.

Current mining law has allowed for the pollution of America’s environment and waterways, placing additional unjust burdens on communities who have already borne the brunt of our nation’s toxic mining legacy. The GAO estimates America is littered with hundreds of thousands of abandoned mines while the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates hardrock mines have polluted 40% of the headwaters of western U.S. watersheds and will cost taxpayers more than $50 billion to clean up. Under current law, taxpayers are potentially liable for billions more in cleanup costs at currently operating mines because the legal requirements for mining companies to remediate lands and waters remain inadequate. This legislation does nothing to address the legacy of abandoned mines or promote remediation of American lands and waters.

Of particular concern, this title upends more than a century of practice by validating mining claims under the Mining Law of 1872 before the claimant has proven a mineral discovery. Currently, mining claims do not become valid just because the claimant says so: mining rights fully vest only after the miner discovers valuable minerals. Yet, under Section 20307, a claimant would no longer need to actually prove they discovered valuable minerals. Instead, any person could “claim” mining rights on unwithdrawn public lands merely by grounding a stake, paying a fee, and filing some paperwork. This section would effectively lock out most other uses of public lands, prioritizing mining instead regardless of whether those lands had any value for mineral development.

Title III also continues the current majority’s constant attempts to unnecessarily prop up the domestic uranium industry. Under Section 20308, the U.S. Geological Survey is once again directed to reevaluate its list of critical minerals. However, under this bill, “fuel minerals” are now defined to specifically exclude uranium, making it an automatic candidate for consideration despite its dominant use as a fuel mineral.

Division C

Division C (as well as section 10008(e) of Division A) would weaken state and tribal authority under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, one of the law’s most important provisions empowering states. Native, rural, and socioeconomically disadvantaged communities have been fighting to stem the marginalization accompanying resource extraction for decades and Section 401 enables those communities to work through states and tribes to protect their waters.

States and authorized tribes depend on the Clean Water Act Section 401 certification process to ensure that projects requiring federal licenses and permits will not harm the waters within their borders—projects like dams, river alterations, wetland fills, and interstate pipelines. If this bill is enacted, state and tribal experts would lose a key oversight tool for activities that can threaten state and tribal investments in pollution control programs, fish recovery programs, temperature control mechanisms, minimum-flow requirements, and other essential activities. 

The bill seeks to limit states’ longstanding authority under Section 401 to broadly consider the impact of a project or activity on water quality. It would significantly curb Section 401’s express authority enabling states to make certification decisions based on requirements of state law, which would severely hamstring states’ and tribes’ ability to comply with laws they have adopted to maintain and improve the condition of their water bodies. As tribes often do not receive the required government-to-government consultation, they depend on Section 401 certification to ensure their waters remain protected. Rollbacks in this proposed legislation would severely restrict the usage of this tool, leaving tribes without one of the few tools they have to ensure their waters are healthy enough to support tribal rights and traditions.

Conclusion

H.R. 1 would encourage new fossil fuel production and infrastructure, locking us into increased extraction, high and volatile energy prices, and even greater profits for fossil fuel companies. It would undermine bedrock environmental laws through its short circuiting of government accountability, meaningful public input, and review. It would put the interests of industry ahead of the public. We urge all Members to vote NO on H.R. 1, and to instead prioritize efforts to meet the challenge of the climate crisis, secure our clean energy future, and protect public health, community voices, public lands, waters, and oceans.

Sincerely,

NRC Meetings: Proposed Revision to EIS Statement for Reactor License Renewals / March 28 – April 6

admin , , ,

Hybrid meetings with public comment in Illinois, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Georgia.

Press Release from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Docket ID NRC-2018-0296

March 14, 2023
CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200

NRC Seeks Comment on Proposed Revision to Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Renewing Reactor Licenses


The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold four additional hybrid meetings around the country as the agency seeks comment on a proposed rule to update the agency’s license renewal Generic Environmental Impact Statement.


The meetings will be accessible via Microsoft Teams. Those interested in attending online should register ahead of time by clicking on the webinar link in the meeting notices below. The meetings will be from 6-8 p.m. local time at each location, and the staff will host a 30-minute open house prior to each meeting.


The meetings will be: March 28 at the Marriott Chicago Naperville, 1801 N. Naperville Blvd. in Naperville, Illinois; March 30 at the Marriott Dallas/Fort Worth Westlake, 1301 Solana Blvd., Building 3, in Westlake, Texas; April 4 at the Alloy King of Prussia, 301 West DeKalb Pike in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania; and April 6 at the Courtyard by Marriott Atlanta Decatur Downtown/Emory, 130 Clairemont Ave. in Decatur, Georgia.


The proposed rule is in response to a 2022 Commission order that concluded the license renewal GEIS did not analyze the environmental impacts of a subsequent license renewal term (from 60 to 80 years of operation). The proposed rule amends the relevant rule language to account for initial license renewal and one term of subsequent license renewal, redefines the number and scope of the environmental issues that must be addressed during the review of each application for license renewal, and updates related guidance to fully address subsequent renewal.


The GEIS covers environmental topics relevant to all nuclear power plant operators seeking renewed licenses. The document accounts for new or revised environmental impacts, changes in regulations or guidance, and applies what the agency has learned during previous license renewals.


The public meetings are one method for submitting comments before the May 2 deadline. Staff will consider the comments before finalizing the rule and GEIS for Commission consideration.

Comments can also be submitted via regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2018-0296,
via email to
Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov,

or via mail to
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001,
ATTN: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff.

nrc(dot)gov/cdn/doc-collection-news/2023/23-024.pdf

— Ward Valley: Remembering a People Power Victory in California

admin , , , ,

From NoNukesCalifornia/ Ecological Options Network

This week people from around the state and the entire country will gather in Ward Valley, California to remember and celebrate the 25th anniversary of an historic people’s victory – the shutdown of a proposed nuclear waste dump project that would have endangered the water supply of Arizona, Southern California and Northern Mexico.

It was a victory of over a decade of persistent non-violent resistance by a coalition of Native American tribes and numerous other activist organizations who joined forces in an inspiring example of the impact united people power can have. That power was again shown in the successful campaign leading to the shutdown of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) in 2013.

In his book Doing Democracy – The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements, the late social movement theorist Bill Moyer [not the TV guy] stressed the importance for activists to remember and celebrate their victories.

In honor of the Ward Valley Win celebration we are issuing an updated version of our 1992 film Choicepoint: California’s Water and Radioactive Waste.

In 1989, a small group of Californians –including Phil Klasky, Ward Young, Rachel Johnson, Pam Dake and EON Co-Director Mary Beth Brangan – joined the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe and a few residents of Needles, California to help begin a movement to stop a planned nuclear waste dump at Ward Valley in the Mojave Desert near the Colorado River.  Diane D’Arrigo of NIRS gave expert organizing assistance and Dan Hirsch of Committee to Bridge the Gap and Roger Herried of Abalone Alliance provided technical and procedural help.

Considered by many a hopeless cause at the beginning, over time the movement grew to include scientists, environmentalists and the region’s many Native American tribes. After a ten-year battle, an peaceful occupation at the proposed site and the powerful involvement of Native American tribal organizers, a judge’s ruling in 1999 brought an end to the planned dump.

This film – produced in thirty years ago and re-mastered from an archival copy – tells the story of that successful movement’s beginning.  It portrays many of the now-fallen peaceful warriors who played important roles in the successful campaign and whose memories will be honored at the Ward Valley gathering.

The film’s analysis of radioactive waste issues is as relevant today as when it was first released.

Mary Beth Brangan and James Heddle Co-Direct EON, the Ecological Options Network.. The EON feature documentary S.O.S. – The San Onofre Syndrome will be released this Spring.

https://nonukesca.net/remembering-a-people-power-victory-in-california/