‘Screw Nevada Two Bill’: NV May be Forced to Take America’s Nuclear Waste Under Trump Plan

(EnviroNews Nevada) — Washington D.C. — On April 26, 2017, the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy, chaired by Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), held a hearing to examine a “discussion draft” called, the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2017 (the 2017 Act). This measure seeks to restart the licensing process for the unfinished, and currently defunct, Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository (Yucca Mountain).

The 2017 Act has been called the “Screw Nevada Two Bill” by opponents of Yucca Mountain because it represents the federal government’s second attempt to send most of the country’s nuclear waste to Nevada for permanent storage, despite the state’s many objections. Yucca Mountain licensing is slated for funding under

President Trump’s preliminary 2018 budget proposal.
Four Nevada lawmakers spoke out against this draft legislation at the April hearing and have also introduced their own bills defending state’s rights regarding consent on nuclear waste disposal issues. During his testimony, Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) pointed out that Nevada does not currently have any nuclear power plants of its own.

Read full story

EnviroNews Nevada by Julia Travers on April 27, 2017, as posted at http://www.environews.tv/042717-screw-nevada-two-bill-nv-may-forced-take-u-s-nuclear-waste-trump-plan/

NWMO hosted open house

Elliot Lake Standard | April 26 | Armed with brochures, maps, photographs and stationary displays, professionals from the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) were in Elliot Lake last Monday and Tuesday (April 24/25) disseminating information on the identification of an appropriate site for a deep geological (nuclear waste) repository (DGR). And with nine communities still in the running as possible host sites, a 250 square-kilometre block about 60 km northeast of Elliot Lake is currently being surveyed and considered as a contender to host the DGR.

According to NWMO communications manager, Mike Krizanc, the site has undergone initial identification and aerial surveys.

“We located the area by desktop identification and an aerial survey was completed last month.”

The airborne ‘gravity’ survey is designed to give geologists a better understanding of ground conditions.

“We are looking for an area that has competent solid ground conditions with few fractures, faults and with minimal ground water migration.”

Known as the Mozhabong Block, the potentially appropriate site will undergo a ground survey this year.

“We will have a team (of geologists) on the ground this summer,” said Krizanc. “They will be mapping, looking at rock structures and other geological indicators.”

The data collected during the winter aerial surveys, compiled with the information collected during the summer, will give the NWMO the information as to the “geological appropriateness” of the site.

“If the site proves to be geologically appropriate we move on with the process…. If the geology isn’t there neither is the project…, and then the community is asked to withdraw from the process.”

Physical criteria is just one aspect of the overall process. Acceptance of the project by the community is a critical component.

“There needs to be a compelling demonstration of willingness by the whole community,” said Krizanc. “The community as a whole will have to decide (find a way of demonstrating) its willingness.”

NWMO has been disseminating information and updating this community on its process for about five years. And according to the organization, they want to identify a single site by 2023. Once a site has been identified there is about five years of preparation and about 10 years of construction before the DGR goes into full operation.

By RICK SMIT, Ellot Lake Standard, Wednesday, April 26, 2017, as posted at http://www.elliotlakestandard.ca/2017/04/26/nwmo-hosted-open-house

Opposition to nuclear waste burial project in Bure, France

For several months, opponents of the French nuclear company Andra’s Cigéo project – a plan to bury high level nuclear waste in mudstone in the agricultural region of Bure, France – have increased their actions on the ground with the occupation of a wooded area in which a part of surface installations for the underground respository would be built, and through protests and demonstrations in front of the Andra’s Research Center in Meuse and Haute-Marne, and through legal action and court appeals.

Read more:

Pourquoi il faut construire Cigéo

Connaissance des Énergies-Apr 5, 2017
Depuis plusieurs mois, les opposants au projet Cigéo ont durci leurs actions, sur le terrain, par l’occupation illicite du bois dans lequel devrait …

Stockage de déchets nucléaires à Bure : le projet remis en question …

Franceinfo-Apr 13, 2017
Le projet Cigéo d’enfouissement de déchets nucléaires à Bure (Meuse) fait débat. Pour certains scientifiques, les risques d’une telle …

Bure : la justice invalide la cession à l’Andra d’un bois nécessaire à …

Sciences et Avenir-Feb 28, 2017
Les opposants au projet Cigéo d’enfouissement de déchets nucléaires à Bure dans la Meuse sont confortés par une décision de justice qui …

Bure : le tribunal administratif annule la cession d’un terrain destiné …
Highly Cited-France Bleu-Feb 28, 2017

300.000 pas, direction Saint-Dizier

Est Républicain-Apr 15, 2017
Vingt-cinq affiches grand format placardées un partout dans Saint-Dizier (Haute-Marne). Dessus, on peut lire : « Ils ont dit non à Cigéo/Bure.

Bure, une année déterminante contre le projet CIGÉO !

Mediapart-Jan 4, 2017
A Bure dans la Meuse, les opposants au site d’enfouissement des déchets nucléaires poursuivent leur combat. Retour sur l’histoire d’une lutte …

Opponents to nuclear waste burial take legal actions against Andra, proponent for Cigeo nuclear waste burial project at Bure

Bure – Five associations opposed to the burial of high level nuclear waste in Bure took France’s radioactive waste agency Andra to court over Andra having concealed and underestimated the presence of a water table with geothermal potential in the vicinity of the burial site. The network “Sortir du Nuclear” and five associations that oppose the burial of nuclear in the Meuse in Bure issued the statement: “In order to implement CIGÉO, Andra has, knowingly and in defiance of safety, hidden the potential of a major resource Under the village of Bure. ” As a reminder, the French Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN) excludes such action in France where this may be of particular interest to geothermal energy.

In an earlier appeal in 2015 the court had ruled that the associations’ application was inadmissible because they did not demonstrate “an interest in bringing proceedings”. Andra has been entangled in numerous proceedings initiated by the opponents of the project. Opponents say that the most recent decision in favour of Andra failed to properly consider certain actions or inactions by Andra, and do not rule out future legal challenges. [summary
based on Google translation]

Nucléaire. Les opposants au projet Cigéo déboutés devant la justice


JEUDI, 23 MARS, 2017


Les anti-Cigéo en action à Bure (Meuse) le 14 août 2016. (Photo AFP)

La justice a débouté jeudi en appel les antinucléaires qui demandaient la condamnation de l’Agence nationale pour la gestion des déchets radioactifs. Ils l’accusent d’avoir menti autour du projet controversé de stockage de déchets nucléaires à Bure, dans la Meuse.

Ce jeudi était attendu le verdict de la Cour d’appel de Versailles dans l’affaire opposant l’Agence nationale pour la gestion des déchets radioactifs (Andra) au réseau « Sortir du nucléaire » et cinq associations qui refusent l’implantation d’un centre de stockage de déchets nucléaires à Bure, dans la Meuse. Ces associations demandaient à la justice civile de condamner l’Andra pour avoir dissimulé et sous-estimé la présence d’une nappe phréatique présentant un intérêt particulier pour la géothermie. « Stop Bure », collectif, aussi opposé au projet, rappelait, il y a encore peu dans un communiqué : « Pour pouvoir implanter CIGÉO, l’Andra a, sciemment et au mépris de la sûreté, occulté le potentiel d’une importante ressource géothermique sous le village de Bure. » Pour rappel, l’Autorité de sûreté nucléaire (ASN) exclut en effet ce genre d’action en France lorsque cela peut représenter un intérêt particulier pour la géothermie.

En première instance, en 2015, le tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre avait jugé que la demande des associations était irrecevable car elles ne démontraient pas « avoir un intérêt à agir». Celles-ci avaient depuis fait appel. Jeudi, la cour a pourtant confirmé le premier jugement et estimé que les demandes de ces collectifs étaient bien recevables, mais les a déboutées car «l’examen attentif de leur argumentation ne permet pas de caractériser contre l’Andra la moindre faute. »

Une victoire pour l’Agence nationale empêtrée dans de nombreuses procédures engagées par les opposants à son projet. Celle-ci s’est d’ailleurs félicitée de la décision tout en rappelant « que les données et leur interprétation, transmises en toute transparence, n’ont jamais été contestées par les contre-expertises qui ont eu lieu. De 2007 à 2008, nous avons mené une opération de forage dont l’un des buts était l’évaluation du potentiel géothermique du site prévu pour l’implantation du stockage géologique profond (Cigéo)… Les données obtenues à l’issue du forage nous ont permis de conclure que le potentiel géothermique de Bure ne présentait pas de caractère exceptionnel et était équivalent à la moyenne européenne. » De plus, l’Agence, pour appuyer encore un peu plus ses propos, a ajouté « que l’ensemble des documents techniques relatifs au forage depuis sa définition jusqu’à l’interprétation des données acquises ont été transmis à toutes les parties prenantes. Les contre-expertises indépendantes de l’IRSN, du BRGM (Bureau de recherche géologique et minière) et du cabinet Géowatt, mandaté par le CLIS (Comité local d’information et de suivi du laboratoire souterrain), n’ont pas remis en cause nos conclusions.»

De leur côté les opposants ont estimé que « la Cour d’appel de Versailles a refusé de prendre acte de la faute commise par l’Andra » mais qu’ils ne s’interdisent pas dans un avenir proche de saisir la Cour de cassation pour obtenir gain de cause.

As posted at http://www.humanite.fr/nucleaire-les-opposants-au-projet-cigeo-deboutes-devant-la-justice-633801

Signs of protest: Billboards in town near Bure nuclear waste burial site plastered with messages opposing Cigéo schem e

Bure, France – Twenty-five billboards in the town of Saint-Dizier were covered with posters opposing the Cigéo project to bury nuclear waste a few kilometers away in the Meuse. [Translated]

Hier matin, 25 panneaux publicitaires de la ville de Saint-Dizier ont été recouverts d’affiches un peu particulières : contre le projet Cigéo, qui doit voir le jour à quelques kilomètres de là dans la Meuse.

Publié le 15 avril 2017, as posted at http://www.jhm.fr/departement/les-anti-cigeo-saffichent

Les opposants au projet d’enfouissement nucléaire de Bure

Etienne Ambroselli, une lutte au corps-à-corps contre Cigéo à Bure
The facts – The National Agency for Radioactive Waste Management, Andra, has ordered the expulsion of antinuclear activists in the Bois-Lejuc, one of the sites that will house the infrastructure Cigéo project for burying nuclear waste. The lawyer of the opponents of the project believes that the decision, far from discouraging the fight, will intensify it.

This seems to be a bad blow for the opponents of the project Cigéo … According to Étienne Ambroselli, the lawyer who defends them is rather one of those federating moments for brothers in arms, in a fight that promises Like a war of position, as judicial as physical. [Translation]

By Emmanuelle Ducros, 27 avril 2017 à 12h45, as posted at http://www.lopinion.fr/edition/economie/etienne-ambroselli-lutte-corps-a-corps-contre-cigeo-a-bure-125399

Cet avocat parisien spécialiste de l’environnement défend les opposants au projet d’enfouissement nucléaire de Bure

Les faits – Saisie en référé par l’Andra, l’Agence nationale pour la gestion des déchets radioactifs, la justice a ordonné mercredi soir l’expulsion des militants antinucléaires installés dans le Bois-Lejuc, un des sites qui doit accueillir les infrastructures du projet Cigéo d’enfouissement des déchets nucléaires. L’avocat des opposants au projet estime que la décision, loin de décourager la lutte, va l’intensifier.

Cela a l’air d’un mauvais coup pour les opposants au projet Cigéo… Selon Étienne Ambroselli, l’avocat qui les défend, c’est plutôt un de ces moments fédérateurs pour frères d’armes, dans une lutte qui s’annonce comme une guerre de position, aussi judiciaire que physique.

Read more at http://www.lopinion.fr/edition/economie/etienne-ambroselli-lutte-corps-a-corps-contre-cigeo-a-bure-125399

Déchets nucléaires à Bure : la justice ordonne l’expulsion des «hommes des bois» Opponents of nu clear waste burial at Bure have occupied site for months

The anti-nuclear militants who occupy Lejuc wood, the epicenter of the fight against the Cigéo nuclear waste disposal project, can now be expelled at any time.

As early as Thursday, the anti-nuclear activists who occupy Lejuc wood in the Meuse for months are at risk of being dislodged by the authorities. The Bar-le-Duc Court of First Instance issued an “expulsion decision without delay from the Bois Lejuc”, which became the national court for the removal of radioactive waste (Andra) Epicenter of the fight against the Cigéo project of landfill of nuclear waste, that Andra pilot.

Déchets nucléaires à Bure : la justice ordonne l’expulsion des «hommes des bois»
Par Anne-Laure Frémont , AFP agence Publié le 27/04/2017 à 12:11

Les militants antinucléaires qui occupent le bois Lejuc, épicentre de la lutte contre le projet Cigéo d’enfouissement des déchets nucléaires, peuvent désormais être expulsés à tout moment.
Dès ce jeudi, les antinucléaires qui occupent le bois Lejuc, dans la Meuse, depuis des mois, risquent d’être délogés par les autorités. Saisi en référé par l’Agence nationale pour la gestion des déchets radioactifs (Andra), le Tribunal de Grande Instance de Bar-le-Duc a en effet rendu mercredi une «décision d’expulsion sans délai du Bois Lejuc», devenu l’épicentre de la lutte contre le projet Cigéo d’enfouissement des déchets nucléaires, que l’Andra pilote.

La procédure portait sur l’expulsion du bois de Sven Lindstroem, un Finlandais qui s’y était installé dans une cabane en bois partagée avec d’autres opposants au projet, mais la pratique veut que la décision s’étende à «tous ceux qui habitent dans le Bois-Lejuc», a expliqué à l’Agence France-Presse l’avocat des militants anti-Cigéo, Etienne Ambroselli.

Il n’y a pour l’instant aucun déchet nucléaire à Bure. Juste un laboratoire de recherche souterrain. Mais si le projet est validé, c’est sous le bois Lejuc que l’Andra prévoit de creuser, à environ 500 mètres de profondeur, les galeries censées accueillir les déchets les plus radioactifs de France, et d’autres qui le seront pendant des centaines de milliers – voire des millions – d’années. L’agence prévoit également d’y installer plusieurs puits pour permettre l’aération du site et le transfert des hommes et du matériel.
Pour cela, elle doit réaliser des forages exploratoires dans la forêt afin de récolter des données en vue du dépôt de la demande d’autorisation de création du site, qui doit être déposée en 2018. Or l’occupation du bois rendait jusque-là ces forages impossibles.

«Cette décision remobilise avec la plus grande efficacité les opposants au projet Cigéo», selon l’avocat des militants anti-Cigéo. «Ce qui est sûr, c’est que l’Andra n’est toujours pas propriétaire du Bois-Lejuc et n’a toujours pas d’autorisation de défrichement», a-t-il souligné. Les opposants au projet ont en effet marqué un point en février, quand le tribunal administratif de Nancy, saisi par des riverains du projet, a invalidé une délibération du conseil municipal de Mandres-en-Barrois par laquelle ce petit village meusien, qui jouxte Bure, avait cédé en juillet 2015 le terrain à l’Andra.
L’Andra reste propriétaire de ce terrain mais, pour les opposants à ce projet, ce titre de propriété est fragilisé. La commune a quatre mois pour régulariser la situation et soumettre au vote cette même délibération. «Mais rien ne dit que le maire obtiendra la majorité qu’il avait obtenue», estiment les antinucléaires.

As posted at http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2017/04/27/01016-20170427ARTFIG00158-dechets-nucleaires-a-bure-la-justice-ordonne-l-expulsion-des-hommes-des-bois.php

Michigan legislators introduce resolution of opposition to Great Lakes nuclear waste storage

Michigan – A proposed nuclear waste storage facility in Ontario, Canada continues to receive resistance, with Rep. Dan Kildee (D-MI), together with Sens. Gary Peters (D-MI) and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), having introduced opposition resolutions earlier this week.

The waste storage facility being discussed is a deep geologic repository for up to seven million cubic feet of low and intermediate-level radioactive waste. The site proposed by Ontario Power Generation would put nuclear waste less than a mile from Lake Huron. The effort by Michigan’s federal delegates, however, follows previous attempts from representatives of the Great Lakes region to dissuade both the Trump Administration and Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs Chrystia Freeland from the project.

“Permanently storing nuclear waste less than a mile from Lake Huron just doesn’t make sense and poses a great risk to our Great Lakes,” Kildee said. “From Detroit to Toronto, a growing number of people – in both the U.S. and Canada – have voiced opposition to this dangerous plan. Surely in the vast land mass that comprises Canada, there must be a better place to permanently store nuclear waste than on the shores of Lake Huron.”

Stabenow said the decision could be one that impacts generations to come for both the United States and Canada. A potential spill into the largest freshwater system in the world, which supplies drinking water to more than 40 million people, could have devastating effects both on residents’ health and on the environment, and was a concern highlighted both by Peters and Stabenow.

“President Trump and Secretary of State Tillerson should make every effort to prevent the Canadian government from moving forward with this proposal and work to find an alternative solution that does not jeopardize the health of the Great Lakes,” Peters said.

Numerous senators and representatives from Great Lakes bordering states have already signed on as co-sponsors for their respective legislation. The resolution, if passed, would urge both the president and secretary of state to push back on their counterparts in Canada to prevent the nuclear waste repository.

Published on March 20, 2017 by Peninsula Reports, as posted at https://michiganpeninsulanews.com/news/3336-michigan-legislators-introduce-resolution-opposition-great-lakes-nuclear-waste-storage/

Opposition to Proposed Canadian Nuclear Waste Facility

WASHINGTON – Congressman Dan Kildee (MI-05) and Congressman Sean Duffy (WI-07) today sent a bipartisan letter to the new Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs, ChrystiaFreeland, to express the increasing opposition in both the U.S. and Canada to Ontario Power Generation’s (OPG) plan to build a permanent nuclear waste storage site less than a mile from Lake Huron. In total, 23 Members of Congress – Democrats and Republicans – signed the letter.

OPG, a Canadian state-owned energy company, is currently seeking approval from the Canadian Ministry of Environment to build a permanent nuclear waste storage facility in Kincardine, Ontario, less than a mile from the Great Lakes. Recently, OPG released their own study on potential alternate locations for the site and recognized that there are other viable locations to store nuclear waste in Ontario. A portion of the report said that research shows that there is little concern among the general public regarding the deep geologic repository project. This claim is not true.

“Attached you will find a list of 186 local, county and state governments representing nearly 23 million people in the U.S. and Canada that have passed resolutions opposing the proposed nuclear waste repository. In addition, we have heard from our constituents that they are overwhelmingly opposed to OPG’s proposal. As you can see, contradictory to OPG’s report, there is in fact broad opposition from citizens in both Canada and the United States to burying nuclear waste near the Great Lakes,” the lawmakers wrote in the letter.

To date, 186 municipalities – in both the U.S. and Canada – have passed resolutions opposing the plan, including Flint, Mich., Bay County, Mich.; Toronto, Ontario; Chicago, Ill.; Wayne County, Mich.; Milwaukee, Wisc.; Essex County, Ontario; and Rochester County, New York. The Michigan State Senate also has passed a resolution opposing the Canadian nuclear waste storage site.

Congressman Kildee, a member of the House Great Lakes Task Force, has been a tireless advocate in the fight to stop the storage of Canadian nuclear waste so close to the Great Lakes. For years, he has been raising awareness about the proposed Canadian plan and how an accident could potentially release radioactive material that would devastate the Great Lakes’ $7 billion fishing industry, harm Michigan’s economy and severely damage the world’s largest freshwater supply.

“Our countries have long partnered to protect the Great Lakes. And we ask that the Canadian government continue to enhance our strong relationship by exploring other options outside of the Great Lakes basin to store nuclear waste,” the lawmakers wrote.

The signatories on the letter, in addition to Congressman Kildee and Congressman Duffy, include: Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (MI-12), Congressman Paul Mitchell (MI-10), Congresswoman Jackie Walorski (IN-02), Congressman David Joyce (OH-14), Congressman Sander Levin (MI-09), Congressman Brad Schneider (IL-10), Congressman John Moolenaar (MI-04), Congressman Jim Renacci (OH-16), Congressman Mike Bishop (MI-08), Congresswoman Brenda Lawrence (MI-14), Congresswoman Robin Kelly (IL-02), Congressman Dave Trott (MI-11), Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (OH-09), Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (IL-09), Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (MI-13), Congressman Daniel Lipinski (IL-03), Congressman Peter Roskam (IL-06), Congressman Rick Nolan (MN-08), Congresswoman Marcia Fudge (OH-11), Congresswoman Louise Slaughter (NY-25), Congressman Brian Higgins (NY-26)

Full text of the letter can be found below:

Minister Freeland:

Congratulations on your recent appointment as Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs. We look forward to working with you and Prime Minister Trudeau on a multitude of issues of mutual interest to our countries.

For some time, Members of Congress from both parties have expressed concerned about a proposed deep geologic repository for nuclear waste (DGR) that Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is planning to build in Kincardine, Ontario less than one mile from the Great Lakes.

We would like to emphasize our opposition to permanently burying nuclear waste within the Great Lakes basin.

Recently, OPG released a study on potential alternate locations for the DGR. In that report, OPG recognized that there are other viable locations to store nuclear waste in Ontario that would be technically feasible. And we ask that you require OPG to select a site that is outside the Great Lakes basin. Again, permanently burying nuclear waste so close to the drinking water of nearly 40 million people is just too risky.

Further, a portion of the report, under the section ‘Social Licence’, reads in part, “Research shows that there is little interest among the general public regarding the DGR Project at the Bruce Nuclear site.” We vehemently disagree with this conclusion.

First, one cannot depend on social media or internet traffic activity to determine the public’s feelings about burying toxic waste next to the Great Lakes. This data is neither scientific nor representative of the entire population.

Attached you will find a list of 186 local, county and state governments representing nearly 23 million people in the U.S. and Canada that have passed resolutions opposing the proposed nuclear waste repository. In addition, we have heard from our constituents that they are overwhelmingly opposed to OPG’s proposal.

As you can see, contradictory to OPG’s report, there is in fact broad opposition from citizens in both Canada and the United States to burying nuclear waste near the Great Lakes.

Our countries have long partnered to protect the Great Lakes. And we ask that the Canadian government continue to enhance our strong relationship by exploring other options outside of the Great Lakes basin to store nuclear waste.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter and congratulations again on your appointment.


Daniel Kildee

Sean Duffy

Debbie Dingell

Paul Mitchell

Jackie Walorski

David Joyce

Sander Levin

Brad Schneider

John Moolenaar

Jim Renacci

Mike Bishop

Brenda Lawrence

Robin Kelly

Dave Trott

Marcy Kaptur

Jan Schakowsky

John Conyers, Jr.

Daniel Lipinski

Peter Roskam

Richard Nolan

Marcia Fudge

Louise Slaughter

Brian Higgins

Posted: Feb 01, 2017 04:09 PM EST at http://www.upmatters.com/news/local-news/opposition-to-proposed-canadian-nuclear-waste-facility/648357497

NWMO Holding Open Houses: Elliot Lake, Spanish, Township of the North Shore, Blind River, April 24-27

The long-term management of spent nuclear fuel is the topic for discussion in East Algoma next week. The Nuclear Waste Management Organization is holding open houses to explain the proposal to residents in more detail. Communities in Algoma have expressed an interest to have the spent nuclear fuel buried deep underground in a depository. The first two open houses are next Monday and Tuesday at the Collins Hall in Elliot Lake and Waterfront Complex in Spanish. Then the town hall at the Township of the North Shore and 9 Woodward Avenue in Blind River are the sites for open houses next Thursday and Friday. Each open house goes from 11:00am to 7:00pm.

As posted at http://www.myespanolanow.com/12458/nwmo-holding-open-houses-algoma/