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

May 4, 2015 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Pilgrim Reactor’s Blizzard Shutdown Causes Concern

Nukewatch Quarterly Spring 2015

PLYMOUTH, Massachusetts—The blizzard “Juno” forced Entergy Corp’s Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station to shut down on January 27, and a coalition of local citizens’ groups are asking the NRC to keep it closed. The facility lost off site power during the snow storm, which required it to switch to diesel-powered back-up generators. The severe weather also caused a problem in the switch yard, meaning the power station was unable to send electricity back to the grid.

Pilgrim has experienced similar problems during past storms, which Entergy has not adequately addressed, according to the groups asking for the long-term shutdown: Pilgrim Coalition, Cape Downwinders, Cape Cod Bay Watch and Concerned Neighbors of Plymouth. Citizens called for a proactive shutdown on Jan. 26, when the storm began, citing the fact that an evacuation of the area around the troubled reactor site would be impossible in blizzard conditions. The same day, the NRC itself issued a report stating that Pilgrim had “not provided the assurance level to fully meet all of the inspection objectives and [the NRC] correspondingly determined that Pilgrim will remain in the Degraded Cornerstone of the Action Matrix,” meaning that the reactor operator had failed to correct serious problems identified at the facility one year earlier.

—Pilgrim Coalition, Feb. 3, 2015

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Power, Quarterly Newsletter

May 4, 2015 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Workers Die, Cancer Victims Sue South Korean Nuke Operator

Nukewatch Quarterly Spring 2015

SEOUL—Three workers died December 26 as a result of inhaling toxic gas while building a new nuclear power facility in Ulsan, South Korea. A spokesperson for the utility in charge of the site, the state-run Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power Co., said the company suspected that a nitrogen leak was to blame for the deaths. Korea Hydro was on high alert at the time because of threats from computer hackers who had recently claimed they could disable the control systems of the company’s 23 reactors.

Earlier in December, a group of 1,336 plaintiffs, including 301 thyroid cancer patients and their families, filed a lawsuit against Korea Hydro. The cancer patients, who all live in close proximity to four of the nuclear giant’s facilities, are seeking $13,800 in compensation each, while their family members are asking for under $3,000 per person in damages. The plaintiffs decided to sue after a court ordered Korea Hydro to pay $13,800 to a single thyroid cancer patient, Park Geum-sun, in compensation for her suffering. The case is the first class-action lawsuit brought against the South Korean utility.

Ye Bu-hae, a 69-year-old rice farmer whose wife underwent thyroid cancer surgery, joined the suit along with 66 other thyroid cancer patients from his village of 3,000 people near the Kori nuclear facility. “Our action is for our next generation,” he told Reuters.

—Reuters, Dec. 16; AP, Dec. 26, 2014

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

May 4, 2015 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Desperate “Small Modular Reactor” Promoters Want Clean-up Funds, State Subsidies

Nukewatch Quarterly Spring 2015

AIKEN, South Carolina—Operators of the US Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site (SRS) improperly diverted $750,000 in taxpayer funds—budgeted for clean-up of the site’s extensively contaminated nuclear weapons production facilities—to small modular reactor research in 2012. The federal Office of Management and Budget learned of the shift later the same year and ordered SRS to stop misusing the funds. However, the mismanagement of taxpayer dollars did not become public until this January, after the watchdog group SRS Watch discovered it through a federal open records request.

SRS officials did not respond to questions from reporters on whether the money was ever restored to the cleanup budget—which many argue is already inadequate. In recent years, interest in the still-unproven small modular reactor technology has waned despite other, more straightforward government subsidies. Even Babcock & Wilcox which was awarded a $150 million government grant in 2012 to pursue the technology has significantly scaled back the investment of its own funds in “cookie cutter” reactors.

However, the Washington State Senate does not seem to have gotten this memo. Among the bills proposed there by Republican State Senator Sharon Brown in February are those that would provide a sales tax exemption for small-scale reactor production, require the state’s Commerce Department to support market development for small reactors, and modify the state’s renewable energy definition to include electricity from small nuclear reactors.

—The State (South Carolina), Jan. 7; Augusta Chronicle, Jan. 11; AP, Feb. 24, 2015.

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Power, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter

May 4, 2015 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Government Calculus: How Much is Your Life Worth?

Nukewatch Quarterly Spring 2015

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Your life is worth $6 million less if you die in a nuclear reactor disaster than if you die in a car crash, according to Bloomberg’s analysis of US government statistical models. When the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Transportation Department consider safety upgrades to nuclear power stations and highway systems (respectively), they analyze the cost of the improvement compared to its potential to save lives, assigning dollar values to both variables.

The difference? The Transportation Department values human lives at $9 million each, while the NRC assigns just $3 million per person theoretically saved. Even if we accept the problematic assumption that human lives can be represented in dollars, the question remains: why the discrepancy?

“Using this low value has a significant effect on nuclear license renewals and new reactor approvals,” Union of Concerned Scientists physicist Ed Lyman told Bloomberg. “Nuclear plants are not required to add safety systems that the NRC deems too expensive for the value of the lives they could save.”

Even with lives valued at just $3 million per head, the nuclear industry complains that current safety requirements are too expensive. “If the NRC more accurately estimated the cost of its regulatory requirements, it would find that many of its requirements do not pass a simple cost-benefit test,” said Nuclear Energy Institute Senior Vice President Anthony Pietrangelo at a December 3 Senate hearing. —Bloomberg, Dec. 10, 2014

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Power, Quarterly Newsletter, Uncategorized

May 4, 2015 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Fukushima Updates

Nukewatch Quarterly Spring 2015
Officials Push Additional Mass Dumping of Tainted Water

The head of Japan’s Nuclear Regulation Authority said contaminated water stored at the Fukushima complex should be released into the ocean to ensure safe decommissioning of the reactors. Shunichi Tanaka, Chair of the NRA, made the comment Dec. 12. “I was overwhelmed by the sheer number of tanks (holding water tainted with radioactive substances),” Tanaka told reporters, indicating they pose a danger to decommissioning work. “We have to dispose of the water.”

Likewise, inspectors with the International Atomic Energy Agency said Feb. 17 that the roughly 160 million gallons of contaminated water stored on-site pose massive logistical challenges and strongly urged Japan to discharge it to the Pacific Ocean once it is treated. The conditions per liter of water reportedly are: that radioactive cesium is less than 1 Becquerel; radioactive substances that emit beta rays are less than 3 Becquerels; and the level of tritium is less than 1,500 Becquerels. —Asahi Shimbun, Dec. 13, 2014, & Jan. 22, 2015; & Los Angeles Times, Feb. 17. 2015

Waste Fuel Removed from Vulnerable Cooling Pool

After almost four years of anxiety, Tepco announced it had removed all the highly radioactive waste “spent” fuel from the damaged cooling pool above reactor 4. The building was wrecked by a powerful hydrogen explosion March 15, 2011, and since then experts have warned that another major quake could cause massive radiation releases. Each of the 1,533 fuel assemblies holds 60 to 74 fuel rods, so all 91,980 to 113,442 rods have been transferred to a less vulnerable area of the compound, the company said. Tepco faces the prospect of removing melted fuel wreckage from the cores of units 1, 2 and 3; fuel so badly mangled and emitting so much radiation that removal will take over 40 years. Some experts say removal is not even possible, only entombment. —New York Times, Dec. 20, 2014

Fukushima Radiation Plume Reaches US West Coast

A radiation plume from the March, 2011 accident in Fukushima, Japan took about 2.1 years to cross the waters of the Pacific Ocean and reach the shores of North America, according to a study published December 29 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The study said that peak concentrations of Fukushima fallout in the Pacific could come this year and in 2016. The report claimed that levels of cesium-137 in the Pacific “are still well below natural levels of radioactivity in the ocean,” but cesium does not occur in nature and is found in the oceans only as a result of nuclear bomb testing. The bomb tests dispersed roughly 36 million curies of cesium-137. Emergency radiation monitoring by the US lasted only from March until May 2011, and no federal agencies monitor offshore waters for radiation. —Santa Cruz Sentinel, Dec. 26; Christian Science Monitor, & Washington Post, Dec. 29, 2014

A crane removes debris at the No. 3 reactor building at Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant on Februray 23, 2012. Yomiuri Shimbun Photo
Towns to Store Cesium-Tainted Soil “Temporarily”

The mayors of Futaba and Okuma and the Governor of Fukushima Prefecture have agreed to conditional, “temporary” storage of radioactively contaminated soil and waste collected during clean-up work in the exclusion zone.

The mayors agreed to the construction of “interim” storage sites in exchange for large sums of cash and a legal commitment to again move the material somewhere outside the prefecture for final disposal within 30 years. The two towns will share about $645 million for research and construction of the sites. About 29 million cubic meters of surface soil tainted with cesium, an area the size of Luxemburg, may need permanent storage space. —World Nuclear News, March 3, 2015

Spike in Ocean-Dumped Waste Water

Cleanup crews at Fukushima monitoring a drainage gutter Feb. 22 detected a huge spike in radiation levels in wastewater pouring into the Pacific Ocean. Tepco later said the water was 70 times, or 7,000 percent more radioactive than what is allowably dumped into the sea. The company said it stopped up the drainage because of the extremely high radiation levels, and four days later admitted it first learned of the leak in April, 10 months ago. Bone-seeking strontium-90 in the water measured up to 7,230 Becquerels per liter, when 5 Bq/L is the legal limit. —Global Research, Mar. 1; Japan Times, Feb. 22; & NHK Public TV, Feb. 24, 2015

Sailors’ Lawsuit Vs. Tepco & GE

Several hundred US sailors are suing Fukushima operator Tepco and reactor builder General Electric for $1 billion in damages, alleging the illnesses they suffer come from exposure to radiation that contaminated the USS Ronald Reagan during relief operations. In a report to Congress last summer the Pentagon confirmed that, “the Ronald Reagan encountered the radioactive plume from Fukushima … on March 13,” but added, “We believe it is implausible that these low-level doses are the cause of the health effects reported by the … sailors.”

Attorney Charles Bonner, who represents more than 200 sailors and Marines, says the Navy is just wrong. “The fallacy of that is that low levels of radiation are just as dangerous as high levels…. And even at 100 nautical miles they were taking on 30 times more radiation than is normal,” he said. The 2014 Pentagon report admitted it is still finding and removing radiation from the USS Reagan.

On Feb. 12, GE asked the judge to dismiss the suit, arguing the sailors are asking for “something extraordinary and unprecedented”—compensation under domestic law for exposure to radiation emitted by a foreign nuclear power. Lawyers for the sailors lashed out at GE’s motion March 3, saying the GE reactors’ “design defects contributed to the meltdowns and, by extension, to plaintiffs’ harms.” Judge Janis Sammartino’s decision is pending. —KOMO TV News, Feb. 12; Law360, Mar. 3, & Feb. 12, 2015

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

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • …
  • 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