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

June 26, 2017 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Remember Yucca Mountain? Cancelled and Shutdown in 2010, Some Want a Revival

Update 6/26/17: Legislation to restart the Yucca Mtn dump licensing process is moving forward in the House. Voice your opposition!

The common language in our struggles is understanding each link in the nuclear chain.

—Ian Zabarte, Western Shoshone

Summer Quarterly 2017

By Kelly Lundeen

If you thought the proposal to store highly radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada was dead, check out the new lineup in Washington, DC. With powerful opponents Senator Harry Reid and former President Obama out of the political picture, some Republicans are attempting to revive the licensing process for the waste repository. Trump’s budget proposal requested $120 million for the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has requested $30 million, so the agencies can reopon the licensing process. A Yucca dump would target Western Shoshone lands with the nation’s 70,000-plus tons of waste reactor fuel which would come in from over 70 locations. The nuclear industry responsible for creating the radioactive waste is promoting Yucca and other centralized dumpsites in order to transfer liability to the public from the facilities where it is currently being generated and stored.

Opposition to the Waste Repository Continues

Photo by Indigenous Action Media

Luckily, the movement of Native American and anti- nuclear organizations that stopped the licensing process in 2010 remembers all of the reasons it has always been a bad idea: as a matter of Native sovereignty, science, environment, economy and politics. Considering the site under US federal ownership is a violation of the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley, and Yucca Mountain is held sacred by the Western Shoshone. It is located on the third most seismic region on the continent, near seven cinder cone volcanoes, 26 fault lines and contains a moving water table that would corrode canisters, making it geologically unstable and unsuitable. Transportation by road, rail and barge would expose 100 million people (about a third of the country’s population) living along these routes in the case of an accident. Any accident at the site, 90 miles from Las Vegas, or along the route as it passes through “the Strip,” would devastate the local tourism industry which brought 43 million visitors in 2016. In sum, 299 legal contentions to the application as it stood in 2010 would still require adjudication, resulting in over 400 days of hearings.

Opponents to the dump have maintained their net­work, knowledge and strength. Since the November election, the Native Community Action Council, the only party to the licensing process that is not federally funded, has hosted a forum to defend Yucca Mountain. The National Grassroots Radioac­tive Waste Summit created a Yucca Working Group that gathered 80 organizational signatures on a letter to Congress objecting to any licensing of the abandoned site. All but one member of Nevada’s congressional delegation and majority of Nevadans are opposed to the dump. Lawmakers have intro­duced legislation requiring informed consent from local tribes and governments prior to licensing. The bill would codify the Blue Ribbon Commission’s recommendation that consent-based siting be agreed before money from the federal Nuclear Waste Fund could be dispersed.

Some proponents of the site are undeterred and insist on following through with the portions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) that made Yucca Mountain the destination for the nation’s high level radioactive waste. Dozens of disqualifying road- blocks have to be ignored to restart the process. Draft legislation to renew licensing proceedings, by amending the NWPA, has been heard in the House Energy and Commerce Committee. A few local politicians are driven by hopes of economic gain in return for accepting the waste. Commissioner Dan Schinhofen of Nye County, where Yucca Mountain is located, reportedly said, “… say give us $50 mil­lion up front, and give us $10 million a year.”

If funds for licensing are given Congressional ap­proval, get ready for years if not decades of litiga­tion and direct action.

Elsewhere on the Radioactive Waste Front

Ten million of the $120 million requested for the DOE by Trump is for so-called “interim storage” in anticipation of long delays in licensing a dump at Yucca Mt. Two applications for such “interim” sites in controversial desert areas of Texas and New Mexico have been submitted to the NRC. Neither of the sites has undergone a consent-based siting or environmental impact process.

Waste Control Specialists, Inc. (WSC) has applied to accept more high-level waste at its site in An­drews County, Texas, but in April the firm suspend­ed its application while in the process of being pur­chased by Energy Solutions, Inc. WCS has admitted to facing “enormous financial challenges.” Addition­ally, the Eddy Lea Energy Alliance and Holtec, Inc. applied in March to host 120,000 tons of high-level waste reactor in southeast New Mexico.

Meanwhile the DOE’s Deep Borehole Field Test proposal has been completely scrapped. The DOE had sought approval to test the feasibility of storing radioactive waste in boreholes three miles deep at sites in Texas, New Mexico and South Dakota, but confronted strong opposition from local communities. Although as an alternative waste site it has been suggested the newly discovered sinkhole in front of Mr. Trump’s luxury resort at Mar-a-Lago. After contractors faced resistance in every meeting with area residents in four potential locations, the agency announced, “Due to changes in budget priorities, the Department of Energy does not intend to continue supporting the Deep Borehole Field Test project.”

For updates on opposing bad radioactive waste storage and transport plans, follow the “Don’t Waste America” campaign of Nuclear Information and Resource Service.

—Dakota Free Press, May 24, 2017; Department of Energy, May 23, 2017; Las Vegas Sun, May 22, 2017; Indigenous Action Media, April 27, 2017; Nuclear Information and Resource Service, April, 2017; Native Community Action Council, 2017

Filed Under: Environment, Environmental Justice, Newsletter Archives, Quarterly Newsletter, Radioactive Waste Tagged With: Department of Energy, environmental justice, radioactive waste, transport

March 15, 2017 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

First Nations Condemn High-Level Liquid Waste Shipments

By Arianne Peterson and John LaForge

Spring 2017 Quarterly

On February 22, both the Iroquois Caucus and Anishinabek Nation in Canada declared their opposition to plans to transport more than 5,812 gallons of extaordinarily radioactive waste in liquid form through their territories. The US Department of Energy (DOE) plan, backed by Atomic Energy Canada Limited and Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, intend to send 100 to 150 truckloads of waste, over the course of four years, roughly 1,300 miles from Chalk River, Ontario to the Savannah River Site in South Carolina using public roads and bridges.

The never-before-attempted long range transports of high-level liquid waste are set to start this spring, following US District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s Feb. 2 ruling in favor of the DOE and against a challenge brought by a coalition of environmental groups led by Beyond Nuclear. The exact shipment routes for the waste are being kept secret due to terrorism concerns, but the convoys must pass over at least one waterway directly tied to the Great Lakes—the drinking supply for 40 million people. The waste liquid is so extremely toxic that just one quart of it, evenly dispersed, is enough to contaminate the entire drinking water supply of Washington, DC (a reservoir of just over 140 million gallons) above the safe drinking water standards of the Environmental Protection Agency.
“We assert inherent ownership of the water and jurisdiction within our regions and traditional territories,” said Patrick Madahbee, the Grand Council Chief of 40 Anishinabek First Nations. “We will stand with our Iroquois allies to protect the drinking water. Water is the lifeblood of Mother Earth. Why would we put our precious resource in jeopardy? A spill into any of the waterways would have a tremendous impact on the Great Lakes. Millions of people would be affected—on both sides of the border.”

The weapons-grade waste material, which originated in the US and has been made almost 17,000 times more toxic and more radioactive through processing in Canada, will be “down-blended” at the Savannah River Site into a form that cannot be used for weapons. But critics point out that the process can be done onsite in Canada without putting dozens of communities and the Great Lakes environment at unnecessary and repeated risk of contamination.

The 6,000 gallons are so radioactively volatile that they cannot be shipped all at once, but sent in small, radioactive containers. The total has so much uranium-235 that combing it in a large shipment would risk a “criticality” accident—the uncontrolled chain reaction of nuclear fission—that would look like a bomb blast.

So much gamma radiation is expected to be emminating from the casks that extra long tractor-trailers are intended to separate drivers from the deadly hazard.

“The Iroquois Caucus is well aware that liquid of a very similar nature has been routinely solidified and stored at Chalk River since 2003,” Kahnawà:ke Grand Chief Joseph Tokwiro Norton explained.

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples mandates that states ensure no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent. The Anishinabek Chiefs in Assembly in 2010 passed resolutions opposing the exporting and storage of nuclear waste by either land or water across the Anishinabek Nation, and Canada is a signatory to the UN Declaration.

The indigenous governments are joined by more than 22 municipal councils in the Niagara Peninsula that have passed resolutions opposing the transports.

Seven plaintiffs had urged the court to either suspend the shipments or require a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) in compliance with US environmental law, because such highly radioactive material has never before been transported over public roads in liquid form. But the February ruling deferred to the DOE’s earlier claims that transport of this deadly waste in liquid form poses no more dangers than hauling it in solid form—even without an EIS.

Mary Olson, Director of Nuclear Information and Resource Service’s Southeast Office, one of the plaintiffs, said,“Even without any leakage of the contents, people will be exposed to penetrating gamma radiation and damaging neutron radiation just by sitting in traffic beside one of the transport trucks.”

—Dr. Gordon Edwards, “Radioactive Roads: Transportation of Highly Radioactive Liquid Waste,” Feb. 21; Anishinabek News, Feb. 22; Iroquois Caucus, Feb. 22; WBFO News (Toronto) Feb. 21; and Aiken Standard, and BeyondNuclear.org, Feb. 3, 2017

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

March 15, 2017 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Reflection and Commitment on Being a Better Ally

Water Protectors stand together in opposition to the Dakota Access Pipeline in October 2016. Photo: Rob Wilson.

Editorial

Spring 2017 Quarterly

In our winter fund appeal, we highlighted Nukewatch’s engagement with the struggle against the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) led by Indigenous Water Protectors at the Standing Rock Reservation in North Dakota. Since then, we have reflected on our position—as a mostly white organization—in relation to a Native-led struggle, and we realize we made some mistakes that perpetuated, rather than resisted, the forces of colonialism that continue to oppress and work to erase the presence of Native people in our society.

The letter included a photo of one of our members at a Standing Rock camp holding our Nuclear Heartland banner, which shows the location of US nuclear missiles deployed throughout the Great Plains. We referenced the intersection of our anti-nuclear mission with the No DAPL movement in an appeal for funds, excerpted here:

“The combination in North Dakota of nuclear-armed missiles, dangerous oil pipelines, and 3,000 active hydraulic fracturing wells, has created a literally explosive conflation of the worst environmental threats faced by rural communities anywhere. Help us relieve the region of at least the military leg of this terrible triad by donating to Nukewatch today.”

Simply put, we used the success of a Native-led struggle for justice to draw attention—and money—to our own issues and organization. This was wrong, and we deeply regret it. Because in doing so we failed to prioritize the concern of the Indigenous people who are leading this difficult battle: the fact that they have a fundamental right to exist on the land that white colonizers have been trying to take from them for generations. Native rights are the main issue here and should not be obscured by the concerns of more racially privileged activists.

We are grateful to writer and organizer Kelly Hayes for her piece, “How to Talk About #NoDAPL: A Native Perspective,” published October 27 on her blog transformativespaces.org, which helped us realize our mistakes. Here is an excerpt:

“In discussing #NoDAPL, too few people have started from a place of naming that we have a right to defend our water and our lives, simply because we have a natural right to defend ourselves and our communities. When ‘climate justice,’ in a very broad sense, becomes the center of conversation, our fronts of struggle are often reduced to a staging ground for the messaging of NGOs.

“This is happening far too frequently in public discussion of #NoDAPL.

“Yes, everyone should be talking about climate change, but you should also be talking about the fact that Native communities deserve to survive, because our lives are worth defending in their own right—not simply because ‘this affects us all.’

“So when you talk about Standing Rock, please begin by acknowledging that this pipeline was redirected from an area where it was most likely to impact white people. And please remind people that our people are struggling to survive the violence of colonization on many fronts, and that people shouldn’t simply engage with or retweet such stories when they see a concrete connection to their own issues—or a jumping off point to discuss their own issues. Our friends, allies and accomplices should be fighting alongside us because they value our humanity and right to live, in addition to whatever else they believe in.”

Rather than referencing Standing Rock’s relationship to our anti-nuclear work in our fundraising letter, we should have amplified the voices of Native Water Protectors and called for our fellow white activists to support their efforts. We acknowledge these mistakes here as part of an effort to improve the way we work in solidarity with those fighting for racial justice. We hope our white readers in particular might be reminded by our reflections to avoid similar pitfalls through truly listening to the voices of people of color and more critically analyzing our ally roles, as we intend to do.

Nukewatch is committed to amplifying and supporting calls for justice from marginalized groups not just because they are related to our anti-nuclear work, but because they need to be heard. We will continue to take action in ways that reflect the priorities of disenfranchised activists, such as answering calls from Standing Rock to organize local protests that target banks funding the DAPL. We will also send a portion of the donations received as a result of our fund appeal to the legal defense collective at Standing Rock. If you are not already involved, please join us in defending Native rights at Standing Rock and beyond.

For more about the continuing struggle at Standing Rock go to LastRealIndians.com.

To learn more about being an ally, see the Standing Rock Solidarity Toolkit from Showing Up for Racial Justice.

—Arianne Peterson wrote this piece, representing the views of the Nukewatch staff.

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

February 23, 2017 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Yucca Mountain Scientifically Unsuitable for Rad Waste Repository

Yucca Mountain poses risks beyond Nevada communities. Because of its distance from the majority of radioactive waste in the country, the transport routes would impact a wide swath of the United States. Rail accidents are not rare, so the risks posed from the transport of this material involve millions of people along shipping routes.
Yucca Mountain poses risks beyond Nevada communities. Because of its distance from the majority of radioactive waste in the country, the transport routes would impact a wide swath of the United States. Rail accidents are not rare, so the risks posed from the transport of this material involve millions of people along shipping routes.

By John LaForge

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) sets strict standards that must be met before a high-level radioactive waste repository can be licensed. The licensing process for the Yucca Mountain dump site, which has cost $9 billion to date, was halted in 2010 because the site can no longer be defended on scientific grounds. In its current location, 90 miles from Las Vegas, the dump would also be unlawful because according to the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley, the Western Shoshone Nation holds title to Yucca Mountain and the Western Shoshone overwhelmingly oppose the dump.

While Congressional leaders talk today about reconsidering Yucca, crucial scientific findings (some listed below) should permanently disqualify it. Principle among them is that the geology of Yucca Mt. doesn’t meet the original statutory requirements established by the NWPA. Even after hydrological, geological, volcanic and seismological show-stoppers have been revealed, the licensing process was not halted (until 2010). Instead, NWPA specifications have been repeatedly weakened, leading one Nevada Governor, Kenny Guinn, to accuse the Energy Dept. of lowering standards to win approval for the site.

In 2014, Allison Macfarlane, a former chair of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), warned that when the licensing process was halted, there were still hundreds of “contentions” challenging the application. The General Accounting Office reported that the project’s former managing contractor, Bechtel SAIC, had in 2001 identified 293 unresolved technical issues to further analyze before licensing could proceed. Each contention must be argued before a panel of administrative law judges. Macfarlane wrote in Science magazine that the “[Dept. of Energy] will not be able to submit an acceptable application to NRC within the express statutory time frames for several years because it will take that long to resolve many technical issues.” Macfarlane concluded that “disposal of high-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain is based on an unsound engineering strategy and poor use of present understanding of the properties of spent nuclear fuel.”

In 2007, the Bow Ridge earthquake fault was discovered by the US Geological Survey’s Yucca Mt. Project Branch to be hundreds of feet east of where it had estimated. It passes directly under a planned pad where waste canisters would be kept for years before they are entombed in tunnels inside the mountain, according to the USGS’s May 21, 2007 letter. The error means designers must revamp or scrap their plans. Yucca Mt. project officials said they are still developing repository design, construction and operating ideas. The DOE has never produced blueprints that Nevada state officials can review and critique.

In 2004, the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the National Academy of Sciences found “no scientific basis for limiting the time period of the individual risk standard to 10,000 years…” The Academy reported instead that “repository performance” must be judged on “a time scale that is on the order of [one million] years at Yucca Mountain.” It’s been known for decades that some of the waste, as a New York Times science writer said, “remains radioactive for millions of years,” that it “would be hazardous for millions of years,” and, as the St. Paul Pioneer Press reported, that “nearly 100 million pounds” of high-level waste “will remain lethal for millions of years.” The National Academy of Sciences found in 1983 that the “chemical characteristics of the water at Yucca Mt. are such that the wastes would dissolve more easily than at most other places.” The NAS also “make[s] the assumption that a nuclear waste repository will eventually leak,” and “The wastes would … most likely reach humans through water flowing underground through the wastes and eventually reaching the surface through springs or wells.”

In 2002, a mild earthquake on June 14, about 12 miles southeast of Yucca Mt. fueled opposition to plans for the dump. The magnitude-4.4 quake was called a “wake-up call” by critics who pointed to the potential for damage to above-ground storage facilities, where thousands of tons of waste brought to the site would be kept for decades while it cools. “If anyone ever wondered about the wisdom of locating an underground radioactive dump site on an active fault line, this shows why,” Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said after the quake.

In 1999, a DOE report declared that leaving the waste in storage at reactor sites is just as safe as moving it to Yucca Mt. — as long as the waste is repackaged every 100 years. Given the uncertainties about Yucca Mt. and the risks of moving waste fuel, it makes sense to leave the material were it is generated at the reactor sites while developing alternatives. Independent scientists suggest on-site, above-ground, monitored storage, hardened against terrorism, along with additional measures for safety and security.

In 1998, evidence that the inside of the mountain is periodically flooded with water came in the form of zircon crystals found deep inside. “Crystals do not form without complete immersion in water,” said Jerry Szymanski, formerly the DOE’s top geologist at Yucca. Szymanski’s finding that deep water rises and falls inside Yucca Mt. means “hot underground water has invaded the mountain and might again in the time when radioactive waste would still be extremely dangerous. The results would be catastrophic.” In 1998, the Yucca Mt. site was found to be subject to earthquakes or lava flows every 1,000 years — 10 times more frequently than earlier estimated — according to a California Institute of Technology study. The finding meant that radiation dispersal from the site is much more likely during the dump’s radioactive hazard period.

In 1997, DOE researchers announced that rain water had seeped down 800 feet from the top of Yucca Mt. into the repository in a mere 40 years (as dated by chlorine-36). Government scientists had earlier claimed that rainwater would take hundreds or thousands of years to reach the waste caverns. Federal officials have long required that the existence of fast-flowing water would disqualify the site.

In 1995, government physicists at Los Alamos National Laboratory warned in an internal report that the wastes might erupt in a nuclear explosion and scatter radioactivity to the winds or into groundwater, or both. Dr. Charles D. Bowman and Dr. Francesco Venneri found that staggering dangers will arise thousands of years from now — after steel waste containers dissolve and plutonium begins to disperse into surrounding rock. Dr. John Browne, head of energy research at Los Alamos National Lab, said about the research paper, “Our feeling is that the subject is so important that it deserves additional peer review outside the laboratory.” The DOE’s former top geologist Jerry Szymanski said to the Washington Post, “You’re talking about an unimaginable catastrophe. Chernobyl would be small potatoes.”

In 1990, the National Research Council said in a study that the DOE’s Yucca Mt. plan is “bound to fail” because: a) requiring predictions of safety for even 10,000 years is a scientific impossibility; and b) the Nuclear Waste Policy Act demands a level of safety that science cannot guarantee. The US Circuit Court of Appeals later ordered the government to judge dumpsite performance based not on a 10,000-year, but a one-million-year time scale.

In 1989, sixteen scientists from the US Geologic Survey charged that the DOE was using stop-work orders “to prevent the discovery of problems that would doom the repository.” The geologists reported that, “There is no facility for trial and error, for genuine research, for innovation, or for creativity.” Even the NRC complained that, “work at Yucca Mt. seemed designed mostly to get the repository built rather than to determine if the site is suitable.”

If Yucca Mt.’s containment puzzles can be solved or ignored and it is rehabilitated and licensed after sitting unattended for seven years, gamblers in Las Vegas and scores of other cities around the country will have a problem of health science to face. Fred Dilger, a Clark County, Nevada planner and former state transportation analyst, has warned that when waste trains go through town, “All of the casinos on the west side of Las Vegas Boulevard would be bathed in gamma radiation.”

Filed Under: Environmental Justice, Radioactive Waste, Weekly Column

January 30, 2017 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Nuclear Reactors Bankrupting their Owners

On January 22, FirstEnergy Corporation announced that its faulty and nearly-self-destructed Davis-Besse power reactor east of Toledo, Ohio, will be closed well before its license expires. But the shutdown is not because the reactor represents reckless endangerment of public health and safety. FirseEnergy was fine with that. No, the old rattle trap can’t cover its costs any more, not with the electricity market dominated by cheaper natural gas, and renewable wind and solar.

Davis-Besse’s early shutdown date has not been announced, but CFO James Pearson of FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co., the corporate division in charge of the wreck, said the reactor will close if lawmakers don’t approve a taxpayer bailout.

FirstEnergy said the financial sky was falling in March 2017 too. Its chief nuclear officer Sam Belcher [his real name] told the Toldeo Blade then — as the firm was preparing to float the bailout measure (SB 128) through the Ohio legislature — “The situation is urgent. In the absence of something happening, [taxpayer-funded welfare for the private, investor-owned company] we’re going to have to make some tough decisions.” So far, state lawmakers have refused to save the decrepit reactor using state property taxes. Lawmakers cite old-fashioned free market competition, and the failure of previous subsidies to save the mature, well-established reactor industry.

Serious accidents in 1977, 1985, 1998, and 2002 at David-Besse have endangered the reactor’s neighbors. The most hair-raising scare was the discovery in 2002 that corrosion had eaten through more than 6-inches of the reactor head’s carbon steel. The corrosion went undetected by federal and company inspectors for decades. Having gouged a hole in the reactor cover the size of a football, the corrosion left only 3⁄8 inch of steel holding back the high-pressure coolant. A break would have caused a massive loss-of-coolant accident and out-of-control overheating, resulting in catastrophic uranium fuel melting (known as a “meltdown”) and massive radiation releases.

Repairs took two years and cost $600 million, during which the Department of Justice penalized FirstEnergy over operating and reporting violations. FirstEnergy paid $28 million in fines. Yet the NRC allowed the company to restart David-Besse in 2004, and then to run the rust bucket for 40 reckless years, even after the company tacked on another $600 million in repairs in 2014.

Reactors Shuttered by Bankruptcy or Accident Risk from Calif. to New Jersey

With combined debt estimated at $3.5 billion and losses mounting daily, CFO Pearson said FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. will file for bankruptcy. Not just Davis-Besse, but the firm’s Perry reactor northwest of Cleveland, and Beaver Valley reactors 1 & 2, northwest of Pittsburg, will also likely be closed.

Elsewhere in nuclear reactor phase outs, California utility regulators decided January 11 not to save Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (PG&E) from the free market, but to close the company’s two nuclear reactors at Diablo Canyon when their licenses expire in 2025. The San Francisco Chronicle noted that PG&E opened the complex in 1985 in the face of massive protests over the risk of disaster posed by extremely close earthquake faults, one only 650 yards away. Even after Fukushima, state and federal regulators shrugged “earthquake schmirthquake,” and forced the public to play Russian roulette with the old jalopy. (A record-breaking 9.0 magnitude earthquake off the northeast coast of Japan in March 2011 caused the world’s worst nuclear power disaster at Fukushima, a triple reactor meltdown that is still a geyser of radioactive gases and gusher radioactive water seven years on.) Unlike the bribe-happy legislatures in New York and Illinois, proponents of nuclear power have been unable to convince California state law makers to fund a bail out of PG&E.

In 2013, Southern Calif. Edison, owners of the San Onofre reactors north of San Diego, abruptly decided to close them. Reactors 2 and 3 have been churning out high-level radioactive waste since 1983 and 1984 respectively. The hulks ran into trouble when massive repairs and upgrades failed inspections. In May 2013, US Sen. Barbara Boxer said the reactors were “unsafe and posed a danger to the 8 million people living within 50 miles” and called for a criminal investigation into Edison’s installation of faulty replacement steam generators.

Other decrepit reactors that have closed or are closing soon including: Fort Calhoun in Nebraska, closed at the end of 2016; Oyster Creek* in New Jersey set to close in 2019; Pilgrim* in Massachusetts closing in 2019 or sooner; FitzPatrick* near Oswego, NY and FE Ginna in Ontario, NY (which were set to close in 2017, before state legislators agreed to a bail out); Clinton and Quad Cities* reactors in Illinois, which would have shut down in June 2017 except for another state taxpayer bailout. In 2016, two unfinished Bellefonte reactors in northern Alabama were cancelled. The Tennessee Valley Authority’s initial 1970 order for the two units dragged on for decades, costing electric customers $6 billion, before the agency declared them a lost cause.

Xcel Energy’s single unit Monticello* reactor on the Mississippi River in Minnesota can’t be far behind in this string of closures, especially considering its age and nasty accident record.

* These reactors are clones of the General Electric “Mark I” designed and built by the same engineers that put together the three earthquake-and-tsunami smashed and melted Fukushima-Daiichi reactors in Japan. –John LaForge

Filed Under: Environmental Justice, Nuclear Power, Weekly Column

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 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