Nukewatch

Working for a nuclear-free future since 1979

  • Issues
    • Direct Action
    • Environmental Justice
    • Nuclear Power
      • Chernobyl
      • Fukushima
    • Nuclear Weapons
    • On The Bright Side
    • Radiation Exposure
    • Radioactive Waste
    • Renewable Energy
    • Uranium Mining
    • US Bombs Out of Germany
  • Quarterly Newsletter
    • Quarterly Newsletter
    • Newsletter Archives
  • Resources
    • Nuclear Heartland Book
    • Fact Sheets
    • Reports, Studies & Publications
      • The New Nuclear Weapons: $1.74 Trillion for H-bomb Profiteers and Fake Cleanups
      • Nuclear Power: Dead In the Water It Poisoned
      • Thorium Fuel’s Advantages as Mythical as Thor
      • Greenpeace on Fukushima 2016
      • Drinking Water at Risk: Toxic Military Wastes Haunt Lake Superior
    • Nukewatch in the News
    • Links
    • Videos
  • About
    • About Nukewatch
    • Contact Us
  • Get Involved
    • Action Alerts!
    • Calendar
  • Donate

December 21, 2021 by Nukewatch 1 Comment

Study: Contrary to Early ‘All Clear’, California’s Woolsey Wildfire  Dispersed Radioactivity from Contaminated Santa Susana Lab Site

Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2021-2022
From Denise Duffield, PSR Los Angeles; Melissa Bumstead, Parents Vs SSFL; and Marco Kaltofen, Worcester Polytechnic Institute

A study published in the Journal of Environmental Radioactivity finds that radioactive contamination from California’s Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL) was lofted off site during the 2018 Woolsey Fire, which began at SSFL. The study calls into question early and highly implausible claims by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) and its toxics department that no contamination was released.

SSFL is a former testing complex for nuclear reactors and rocket engines located about 30 miles from Los Angeles in hills above the San Fernando Valley. For decades, accidents, spills, and fires at the SSFL, including a partial reactor meltdown in July 1959, resulted in extensive radioactive and chemical contamination that has not been cleaned up. The 1959 fuel melting caused the worst atmospheric release of radioactive iodine-131 in US history, and was the fourth worst in the world after Fukushima, in Japan, Chernobyl in Ukraine, and Windscale in England.

This photo’s black star shows tracks made by alpha rays emitted from a particle of plutonium in the lung tissue of an ape. Inside the body, alpha rays can penetrate more than 10,000 cells within their range. Photo by Robert Del Tredici, At Work in the Fields of the Bomb, 1987.

The study found radioactive particles associated with the fire at SSFL as high as nineteen times background [radiation levels] as much as nine miles away. And it concludes that “some ashes and dusts collected from the Woolsey Fire zone in the fire’s immediate aftermath contained high activities of radioactive isotopes associated with the Santa Susana Field Laboratory. … and confirmed the presence of radioactive micro-particles in the Woolsey Fire-related ashes and dusts.”

The findings contradict conclusions by CalEPA’s Dept. of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), which, a mere nine hours after the fire began on November 8, 2018, declared that the fire didn’t result in releases of hazardous materials. CalEPA/DTSC issued an interim study in December 2018, affirmed in a final version in December 2020, which asserted that “data from sampling and measurements did not detect the release of chemical or radiological contaminants from SSFL.” The assurances were widely criticized at the time, and the new findings have both disproved them and have reinvigorated widespread concerns about the failure to fully clean up SSFL as long promised.

The new study “Radioactive micro-particles related to the Woolsey Fire in Simi Valley, CA” was conducted by Marco Kaltofen of the Dept. of Physics, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, and Maggie and Arnie Gundersen of Fairewinds Energy Education. It examined 360 samples of household dust, surface soils, and ash from 150 homes and elsewhere, collected from December 2018 to February 2019.

Radioactive micro-particles in ash and recently-settled dusts collected just after the Woolsey fire, were “found in Thousand Oaks, CA, and Simi Valley, CA, about nine and three miles from SSFL, respectively. The Thousand Oaks samples had alpha count rates up to 19 times background,” the study reports. The researchers noted that alpha radiation-emitting thorium was the source of this excess radioactivity. The authors warn of small, dispersed alpha particles because of the “high risk of inhalation-related long-term biological damage from internal alpha emitters compared to external radiation,” the authors report.

Had the state and the parties responsible for the contamination (Boeing, NASA, and the Energy Department) met their legally binding obligations to clean up SSFL by the 2017 deadline, the 2018 fire couldn’t have released contamination. Further failure to clean the site poses continuing risks to the nearby population, warned Congressional and local elected officials in an Oct. 14 letter.

Lawmakers Complain of Clean-up Failure, Delays, and Gutted Decontamination Standards

There is widespread concern among elected officials and the community about secret negotiations between the state and Boeing Corp. that could further delay the cleanup, and allow giant military contractor to walk away from its radioactive and chemical contamination. California Congressional rep’s Brad Sherman, Julia Brownley, Jose Luis Correa, Graciela Flores Napolitano, and US Senator Alex Padilla sent a letter to CalEPA October 14 reminding the agency: “The 2007 Consent Order and 2020 Administrative Orders on Consent … required that soil cleanup be completed by 2017, however the agreed upon soil remediation at the site has yet to begin. We are deeply concerned about the lengthy delays….” In addition, County Supervisors from Ventura and Los Angeles County, six city mayors, and a Los Angeles City Council member wrote October 14 to CalEPA declaring, “We are opposed to any action that would significantly delay or weaken site cleanup.” The officials singled out the state’s failure to enforce the 2007 Consent Order, confidential negotiations between DTSC and Boeing, and potential changes to methodology rules that could delay or weaken clean-up requirements; as well as delays in the Programmatic Environmental Impact Report.

The core of such a Boeing-Newsom Administration deal could allow as much as twenty times higher levels of contamination than permitted currently. CalEPA remains in secret negotiations with Boeing.

“Federally funded studies have previously confirmed that contamination [above] US EPA levels of concern has migrated off site, and that the incidence of key cancers in the neighboring communities increases with proximity to the site,” said Denise Duffield, associate director of Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles. “In addition, site owner Boeing has been fined hundreds of thousands of dollars for exceeding contamination limits in surface water runoff leaving the site over many years. Until [those] responsible for the pollution finally live up to their clean-up agreements, people living around the site will be at further risk to their health,” Duffield said.

“The bottom line is, if SSFL had been cleaned up by 2017 as required by the clean-up agreements, the community wouldn’t have had to worry about contamination released by the Woolsey Fire,” said Melissa Bumstead, co-founder of Parents vs. SSFL. “My daughter is a two-time cancer survivor, and no parent should have to worry that the SSFL might give their child cancer when there’s a fire on site, or when it rains or it’s windy.”

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

December 21, 2021 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Reactor Operators Want to Run for 80 Years, but Federal Laboratory Hid “Critical gaps” in Knowledge About How Reactors Age 

Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2021-2022
By Hal Bernton, The Seattle Times, Nov. 1, 2021 
Editor’s note: This is an excerpted version of the article. 

Federal regulators have embarked on a new era of relicensing that could eventually enable … US nuclear power plants to operate for as long as 80 years.

Researchers have conducted years of experiments to learn more about how different parts of the power plants age when exposed to a harsh mix of pressures, water chemistry and radiation.

Despite all this testing, questions remain about the long-term wear, beyond the 60 years for which plants are licensed. So the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) that conducts relicensing contracted with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) in Richland to develop a kind of road map for future study.

That report was published online in 2017 by the PNNL federal laboratory. It detailed a series of “critical gaps” in knowledge, and proposed an ambitious research plan to help fill them in by studying parts pulled from shuttered nuclear power plants.

This report got a chill reception at the NRC.

Some commission staff thought some of the report’s wording was inaccurate or misleading and could lead readers to believe “we should not be issuing renewed licenses” to run for up to eight decades, according to emails and other documents obtained under the federal Freedom of Information Act.

“I think the entire report needs to be scrubbed for text that points to gaps and, if issued, we need a stronger basis for why we will grant renewed licensing … before harvesting [of parts from shutdown reactors] and testing is completed,” wrote one NRC staffer.

The report was substantially revised by the NRC, which in 2019 released a toned-down version of the report that deleted all seven references to critical gaps in knowledge.

The rocky path of this study through the federal regulatory commission offers an unusual window into the launch of a licensing renewal that is expected to determine the fate of most of the current generation of US nuclear power plants. …

Most of these reactors … are licensed to operate for up to 60 years past their initial startup date.

Without license extension to operate for an additional 20 years, almost all of them would have to shut down during the first half of the 21st century, a pivotal period in the struggle to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases driving climate change….

Scott Burnell, a spokesperson for the NRC, said that relicensing involves a thorough safety review, and that NRC officials are convinced there already “is sufficient information to appropriately manage the aging of the plants.”

Burnell said the 2017 PNNL report was a draft document, although there were no markings to indicate that, and that the report underwent the “normal editing process.” ….

2017 report posted online, then removed 

Paul Gunter obtained the NRC documents detailing the internal criticisms of the PNNL report. He is an activist with Beyond Nuclear, a group working for a world “free of nuclear power and nuclear weapons.”

Gunter for years has watchdogged the relicensing of nuclear power plants, and more recently has been a vocal critic of the NRC’s proposal to consider up to 80 years of operation for US nuclear power plants.

“This is pushing to the extreme,” said Gunter.

Gunter during an online search went to the PNNL website, and found a copy of the 2017 report. He was encouraged by the authors’ recommendations, and cited the study at a Sept. 26, 2018, meeting about relicensing convened by the NRC. “I started asking questions and their jaws dropped, and they said, ‘We can’t be talking about this,’ ” Gunter recalls.

Soon after Gunter cited the report at the meeting, he said the report was pulled down from the PNNL as well as Department of Energy and International Atomic Energy Agency websites that had also posted the document.

Troubled by the effort to keep the 2017 report from public view, Gunter’s organization then filed a federal Freedom of Information Act request to gain access to NRC documents related to the study.

These documents show how NRC’s own research staff had questions about how important structures would hold up over 80 years of operations. A 2013 project description stated that “understanding and managing” how things degrade is “unquestionably a key need for continued safe and reliable” reactor operations, and “also an area with very significant uncertainties.”

One of the most challenging areas involves embrittlement of metal in reactor pressure vessels that are bombarded by neutrons during the fission process. Extreme embrittlement could result in reactors having to reduce power production or shut down all together.

The aging of reactor internals and concrete, and deterioration of cables, also are concerns, according to NRC documents Gunter obtained. …

As of October, the NRC has approved operations of up to 80 years for six reactors. Applications for nine others are under review.

The NRC earlier this year also considered, then put on hold, a public discussion about possibly licensing reactors for as long as 100 years. …

— Seattle Times reporter Rebecca Moss contributed to this report. 

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Power, Quarterly Newsletter

December 20, 2021 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Ignoring Outcry, Mockery, Japan Intends 2023 Start of Fukushima Wastewater Dumping

Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2021-2022

On October 18, Japan’s Prime Minster Fumio Kishida said there would be no postponement of its plan to pollute the Pacific Ocean with 1.27 million metric tons of radioactive cooling water from Fukushima’s destroyed reactors. Kishida said releasing the “heavily diluted” waste water would begin in the spring of 2023. The dispersal is expected to continue for decades as the accumulation of radioactive cooling water increases by 150 tons every day. The water becomes severely contaminated after being poured over large volumes of roiling, not, melted uranium and mixed uranium/plutonium fuel under Fukushima-Daiichi’s three destroyed nuclear reactors.

The International Atomic Energy Agency’s Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi was openly mocked with laughter by the dignitaries at COP26 on November 4. The adamantly pro-nuclear Grossi had said before the large audience, “No one died from radiation at Fukushima,” provoking the laughs. “I don’t know why you’re laughing, it’s a fact,” he griped. Earlier Grossi warmed up the crowd with this thigh-slapper: “We control this activity so it does not cause any harm.” Grossi’s job is difficult since under its United Nations Statute, the IAEA has only one objective: “The Agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy … throughout the world.”

Japan’s April decision to further pollute the Pacific caused an uproar in dozens of Pacific rim of countries. South Korean officials denounced Kishida’s declaration the same day, saying that it represents a “grave threat” to the marine environment. South Korea continues to ban seafood imports from the Fukushima region and has repeatedly condemned the dumping plan, which a senior South Korean foreign ministry official said, “could affect our people’s health and security as well as the ocean environment.”

Alternatives to the ocean dumping include long-term tank storage, more thorough filtering, or evaporation, and in 2019 Japan’s own ministry of economy and industry recommended including evaporation in its list of waste water options.

China’s Global Times reported in October that Liu Jiangyong, vice dean of the Institute of Modern International Relations at Tsinghua University, asked if the wastewater will be processed and will have no impact on the marine environment and food web as the Japanese government claimed, why can’t the water be recycled on land? Japan can’t answer any of these questions, said Liu. The ideal plan would be for Japan to process the wastewater to a safe level and recycle it, rather than dump it into the sea, said Liu.

A June letter to Japan’s permanent mission to the United Nations signed by a group of 70 groups, including Nukewatch, warned: “The dumping of radioactive water into the Pacific is also a violation of international law. The 1972 Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter and the London Protocol prohibit dumping of any concentration of radioactive material into the sea.”

In May, three human rights experts appointed by the UN’s Human Rights Council issued a statement that expressed “deep regret” at Japan’s dumping plan and “reminded Japan of its international obligations to prevent exposure to hazardous substances, to conduct environmental impact assessments of the risks that the discharge of water may have, to prevent transboundary environmental harms, and to protect the marine environment.”

Tokyo Electric Power Co. (Tepco), operators of the Fukushima complex, announced August 24 it would construct a tunnel underwater to release the 1.27 tons of radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean. Tepco said it would start building at least one 8-foot diameter half-mile-long tunnel in March 2022 by hollowing out bedrock on the seabed near the No. 5 reactor at Fukushima, Japan Times reported.

Critics around the world immediately denounced the plan as an attempt to avoid any oversight, monitoring, or independent inspection of the radioactive materials in the waste water.

“…to dump it into an ocean, where we share the same tides, current, and fish, it is a level up from urgent for us,” said Henry Puna, secretary general of the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, noting that even basic concerns had not yet been addressed. “Currently we are not satisfied there will be no harm to our Blue Pacific,” he told Civil Beat in September.

A regional collective of young activists called Youngsolwara Pacific has condemned the dumping plan and Japan’s lack of consultation. Likewise, a senior South Korean foreign ministry official told China’s Global Times in October that, “Japan’s decision was made without enough consultations with neighboring nations.” Talei Luscia Mangioni, a researcher at Australian National University and Youngsolwara Pacific member, said “… this is an act of transboundary harm. ” And it is typical, she said, considering the history of nuclear powers that “have treated the Pacific as a sacrifice zone.”

In Iitate village 24 miles from Fukushima’s meltdowns, Nobuyoshi Ito, a former computer engineer, has been measuring the radioactive properties in the food and soil for nearly a decade. Mr. Ito always carries a monitor and is constantly recording radiation levels, “trying to determine what is and isn’t safe to eat, and where it is and isn’t safe to go,” CBS News reported last August. While the town’s evacuation orders are gone, Ito says people — especially children — shouldn’t return. “It will take 300 years to restore the village to its original state, and it will continue to emit radiation for 300 years,” he said.

On September 22, the United States lifted its weak restrictions on imported food stuffs from Japan, and food products free of inspection now include even rice harvested in Fukushima. According to Japan’s farm ministry, the US is the 3d-largest importer of its food products and were worth $1.09 billion in 2020. Fourteen countries continue to maintain their food import bans. FDA officials say they’d determining a “very low risk” to US consumers from radioactive contaminants in the foods. — JL

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

December 20, 2021 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Nuclear-Powered Submarine Wrecks: Routine, Deadly, Toxic

Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2021-2022

USS Connecticut Smashes into Undersea Mountain

US Navy officials report that its nuclear-powered, fast-attack submarine USS Connecticut struck an underwater mountain in the South China Sea on October 2, echoing the disastrous crash of the USS San Francisco in 2005 south of Guam. US military officials told CBS News that two Connecticut crew members suffered “moderate” injuries and several sustained minor bumps and bruises. The Navy said the sub’s nuclear reactor was not damaged.

A month after the crash, Connecticut’s three top officers were fired “due to loss of confidence.” As we go to press, the Pentagon had not yet explained why the 23-year-old Connecticut struck an underwater mountain, or revealed the extent of damage to the vessel. China’s government has accused the US of a “lack of transparency and responsibility” regarding the accident. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said November 2, “We once again urge the US to give a detailed account of the accident,” the AP reported.

Some 52 US conventional diesel-powered Navy submarines were lost at sea during WWII, according to The Lost 52 Project. Beginning with the USS Nautilus in 1951, the submariners’ risk-taking with their own lives and with the ocean’s biological integrity was compounded by the switch to nuclear reactors for propulsion.

300-Year Oceanic Hazard

The Aug. 25, 2000 New York Times report about long-lived radioactive materials leaking from sunken nuclear reactors (then onboard the Russian sub Kursk), noted a fact that applies to all the lost reactors: “The two of most concern — strontium-90 and cesium-137 — have half-lives of about 30 years, and will take about 300 years to decay away.”

USS Thresher

USS Thresher was a nuclear-powered attack submarine that sank on April 10, 1963 during deep-diving tests, killing all 129 crew and shipyard workers onboard. Thresher was the third of four submarines that would sink with more than 100 people aboard.

USS Scorpion

The nuclear-powered submarine Scorpion sank with all hands on May 22, 1968. The Scorpion was one of four submarine disappearances that year, the others being Israel’s sub Dakar, France’s sub Minerve, and the Soviet sub K-129.“Neither vessels’ reactors [on the Thresher and Scorpion], nor the nuclear weapons on board the Scorpion, have ever been recovered,” the Australian Broadcasting Corp. reported Sept. 17, 2021.

Komsomolets

Forty-two crew members died when the experimental Soviet sub Komsomolets sank 5,577 feet to the bottom of the Norwegian Sea following a five-hour-long onboard fire April 7, 1989. While part of the crew abandoned ship in rubber rafts, some of the crew stayed on fighting the fire and shutting down the sub’s nuclear reactors. Researchers said July 10, 2019, that the sub is still emitting radiation, Reuters reported.

Kursk

In August 2000, after explosions destroyed forward parts of the sub, Russia’s nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed Kursk sank in the Barents Sea, only 354 feet down. All 118 crew members died after the failure of repeated rescue attempts.

HMS Tireless

On May 12, 2000, the British fast-attack submarine Tireless suffered reactor accident, spilled radioactive coolant into the Mediterranean, and conducted a lengthy, risky, experimental, and unlawful repair operation in the densely populated area of Gibraltar. News reports at the time said Tireless came within “a few minutes” of a reactor meltdown when high-pressure coolant began gushing out of the system. Docking the damaged, contaminated sub at Gibraltar for six months of repair work violated Royal Navy regulations, and reactor failure resulted in the recall of all 12 of Britain’s Trafalgar Class subs.

K-159

Nine crew members died when the Russian submarine K-159 sank in 2003 while being towed through a violent storm in the Barents Sea. Environmentalists said that the danger of radioactive contamination from the sub’s two propulsion reactors was “much higher than official statements suggested.”

USS San Francisco

On Jan. 8, 2005, the nuclear-powered fast-attack submarine San Francisco, running at top speed, smashed into an undersea mountain 500 feet down, killing one sailor and leaving 98 battered and bloodied after being hurled through the air by the crash. Several were knocked unconscious and many were bleeding from head wounds. After the crash, “blood was everywhere,” one account read. “There was so much blood on the instruments and on the control room floor,” Chief Petty Officer Danny Hager said, “that the place looked like a slaughterhouse.”

HMS Vanguard and Le Triomphant

On the night of Feb. 3, 2009, France’s Le Triomphant, and Britain’s HMS Vanguard, both carrying nuclear weapons, collided while submerged in the Atlantic. Both vessels were damaged although the 250 crew members aboard were uninjured, the New York Times reported. All nuclear-armed subs are shrouded in extreme secrecy, so very little is known about the extent of the damage, but Kate Hudson, chairwoman of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, said then the collision “could have released vast amounts of radiation and scattered scores of nuclear warheads across the seabed.”

Losharik

On July 1, 2019, fourteen Russian sailors were killed by toxic fumes when a fire broke out aboard the nuclear-powered research submarine Losharik which was operating in the Arctic. —JL

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Power, Quarterly Newsletter

December 20, 2021 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

World Nuclear Industry Status Report Summary

Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2021-2022

The conclusion of the 2021 World Nuclear Industry Status Report is that nuclear power is in decline. The 409-page report reveals that nuclear’s share of global electricity production is falling, having generated 3.9 percent less electricity in 2020 than the previous year. “Nuclear energy’s share of global gross electricity generation continues its slow but steady decline from a peak of 17.5% in 1996 [to] a share of 10.1% in 2020,” the report found. The report also reminds readers that “small modular reactors,” under development in the US, Canada and elsewhere, may never be commercially viable. The data indicate that renewable energy sources are fast becoming more available and increasingly cheaper than nuclear. Even China has slowed its reactor expansion and only increased its nuclear electricity capacity by 2 gigawatts (GW) in 2020, compared to a total of 133 GW from renewables. The world nuclear report also highlights the increasing levels of reported corruption in the nuclear industry, with an entire chapter devoted to the topic.

—Deutsche Welle, Sep. 28, 2021; The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2021

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Power, Quarterly Newsletter

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • …
  • 94
  • 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