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

April 2, 2019 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Proposed Nuclear Waste Dump and Nationwide Shipments Called “Unlawful”

NOTE: This piece was shortened for space from for print version of Spring 2019 Nukewatch Quarterly from a Nuclear Information Resource Service press release by Diane D’Arrigo and Leona Morgan.

Ten citizens’ organizations and two industry groups have blasted an application by Holtec International, Inc. for a license to build the world’s largest radioactive waste dump—in New Mexico. If licensed, the “parking lot dump” would lead to tens of thousands of cross-country shipments of the waste—by trains, trucks, and barges—for decades.

Official waste transport routes show containers moving across nearly 90% of US congressional districts, through neighborhoods, cities, farmlands, ocean-fronts, and across major lakes and rivers. Representing seven of the groups, attorney Terry Lodge said at a recent New Mexico hearing, “The Holtec proposal is a corporate welfare trough that will make the [radioactive] waste problem worse, putting millions of people along transport routes at unnecessary risk.”

The interveners filed 40 objections, demanding that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Atomic Safety and Licensing Board halt the licensing process, charging that the plan is unlawful. The federal Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) allows the Department of Energy (DOE) to take possession of the commercial reactor waste, but only at a permanent underground dump site. The NWPA does not permit “title and liability transfer” of the waste to a private “interim” dump site as Holtec proposes. The NWPA precaution is intended to prevent temporary storage from becoming permanent. Holtec’s proposed site in New Mexico is not suitable for long-term waste isolation, the groups argue, and not even suitable for short-term storage.

At the hearing in New Mexico, Holtec lawyer Jay Silberg admitted that under current law, DOE cannot take title to the waste at its “interim” dump site. The admission prompted Diane Curran, an attorney for Beyond Nuclear, to say, “We should not even have to argue this hypothetical case. We call on the licensing board to dismiss the application.”

Sierra Club lawyer Wallace Taylor said at the hearing, “It is irresponsible and illegal to grant a license for 20, 40 or 60 years and ignore that the waste will be dangerous for centuries longer with no plans to continue managing and isolating it.”

Among the objections are environmental racism; water contamination; inadequate waste containers; inability to inspect, monitor or repackage waste inside the casks; waste abandonment costs and funding; and needless transport endangerment.

The 3-judge NRC panel could decide in April which groups have “standing” to intervene, and which of the 40 objections will be considered.

  • Nuclear Information Resource Service, Jan. 31, 2019

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

April 2, 2019 by Nukewatch 3 Comments

Nuclear Power Worsens & Can’t Survive Climate Disruption

By John LaForge
Spring Quarterly 2019

Donald Trump claims, “America will never be a socialist country.” But he’s too late. We already have socialism for the rich, with the nuclear power industry as a prime example.

On a level playing field, nuclear power would go bust. Those owners get financial supports or subsidies that safe renewables like solar power, geothermal, and wind power don’t get. Two particularly large government handouts keep the reactor business afloat, and without them it would crash overnight.

1) In a free market, the US Price Anderson Act would be repealed. The act provides limited liability insurance to reactor operators in the event of a loss-of-coolant, or other radiation catastrophe. The nuclear industry would have to get insurance on the open market like all other industrial operations. This would break their bank, since major insurers would only sell such a policy at astronomical rates, if at all.

2) The US Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) would also be repealed. NWPA is the government’s pledge to take custody of and assume liability for the industry’s radioactive waste. Without NWPA the industry would have to pay to contain, isolate and manage its waste for the 1-million-year danger period. The long-term cost would zero the industry’s portfolio in a quick “correction.”

“From a business perspective, it’s over”

Even if the industry retained the above two subsidies, economists say the reactor business is finished. Jeremy Rifkin—the renowned economic and social theorist, political advisor to the European Union and heads-of-state, and author of 20 books—was asked his view of nuclear power’s future at a Wermuth Asset Management global investors’ conference. Rifkin demolished its prospects in short order:

Frankly, I think … it’s over. Let me explain why from a business perspective. Nuclear power was pretty well dead-in-the-water in the 1980s, after Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. It had a comeback. The come-back was the industry saying: ‘We are part of the solution for climate change because we don’t emit CO2. It’s polluting, but there’s no CO2.’

“Here’s the issue: Nuclear power right now is six percent of [the electric] energy of the world. There are only 400 nuclear power plants. These are old nuclear power plants. But our scientists tell us [that] to have a minimum impact on climate change—which is the whole rationale for bringing this technology back—nuclear would have to be 20 percent of the energy mix to have the minimum, minimum impact on climate change—not six percent of the mix.

“That means we’d have to replace the existing 400 nuclear plants and build 1,600 additional plants. Three nuclear plants have to be built every 30 days for 40 years to get to 20 percent, and by that time climate change will have run its course for us. So I think, from a business point of view, I just don’t see that investment. I’d be surprised if we replace 100 of the 400 existing nuclear plants which would take us down to 1 or 2 percent of the energy [mix].

“Number 2: We still don’t know how to recycle the nuclear waste and we’re 70 years in. We have good engineers in the United States. We spent 18 years and $8 billion building an underground vault in Yucca Mountain to store the waste for 10,000 years, but we can’t use it. It’s already no good because there are cracks in the mountain. But any geologist could have told them we live on tectonic plates and you can’t keep underground vaults secure.

“Number 3: We run into uranium deficits according to the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] between 2025 and 2035 with just the existing 400 plants. So that means the price goes up.

“Number 4: We could do what the French generation of new plants is doing and recycle the uranium to plutonium. But then we have plutonium all over the world in an age of uncertainty and terrorism.

“Finally, and this is the big one that people don’t realize: We don’t have the water. Over 40 percent of all the fresh water consumed in France each year goes to cooling the nuclear reactors. It’s almost 50 percent now. When it comes back [when reactor cooling water is returned to the lakes and rivers] it’s heated and it’s dehydrating our ecosystems, and threatening our agriculture. We don’t have the water, and this is true all over the world. We have saltwater nuclear plants but then you have to put them on coastal regions and you risk a Fukushima because of tsunamis….

“So it’s no accident Siemens [Corporation] is out, Germany is out, Italy is out, Japan is now out… [and since Rifkin spoke, Spain and Belgium too are out.] I’d be surprised if nuclear has much of a life left. I don’t think it’s a good business deal.”

Rifkin is not alone in this assessment. William Von Hoene, Senior Vice President of Exelon Corp., said last April 16 at the annual US Energy Association’s meeting, “I don’t think we’re building any more nuclear plants in the United States,” Platts reported. “I don’t think it’s ever going to happen,” Von Hoene said. “I’m not arguing for the construction of new nuclear plants. They are too expensive to construct.”

—For a fact sheet on industry leaders who say nuclear power is over, see: http://nukewatchinfo. org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Why-No-NuclearRevival-Full-Fact-Sheet.pdf.

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Power, Quarterly Newsletter, Renewable Energy

January 2, 2019 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Winter 2018-19 Nukewatch Quarterly Newsletter

Click the links below to access articles from our Winter 2018-19 Quarterly Newsletter. Individual articles are also tagged by issue category.

Cover and Back Page

Woolsey Fire Started at Toxic Santa Susana Lab
White House Says Radiation Good for You
Islamophobia, A New Chapter in US History of Xenophobia
Update on the Kings Bay Plowshares

Page 1

Melting Glaciers Releasing Bomb Test Radiation
Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty Gains Strength

Page 2

Fukushima Filter Failure: A Million Tons of Toxic Water Far Too Radioactive for Release to the Pacific
Thyroid Cancer Increase Among Children and Teens Since Fukushima
Energy Report: How Does Nuclear Survive?

Page 3—Nuclear Shorts

Weaponized Insects from the Pentagon?
Fukushima Disaster Film In Production
France to Scale Back Nuclear Reactor Fleet
Plutonium Factory Workers’ Comp Law Brings US Justice Dept. Threat
$1,280 Each for Air Force Coffee Cup
England Dumps Rad Sludge in Welsh Waters
US Mass Murder School

Page 4

US Nuclear Weapons “Sharing” in Europe—Protest and Resistance
“Low-yield” Mass Destruction

Page 5

Russia Pledges No-First-Use of Nuclear Weapons, Joining China, North Korea, and India

Page 6

Congress Could Trim Bomb Production Plans, Tweek Nuclear Attack Policy
Parking Lot Radioactive Waste Dumps
West Lake & Bridgeton Superfund Site Cleanup Approved

Page 7

Through the Prism of Nonviolence—In the Face of Immigration

Filed Under: Newsletter Archives, Quarterly Newsletter

December 31, 2018 by Nukewatch 2 Comments

Woolsey Fire Started at Toxic Santa Susana Lab

Distrust of Agencies Spur Independent Study of Contamination from Site

By Physicians for Social Responsibility-LA, & Parents vs. SSFL
Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2018-19

The Woolsey Fire began on November 8 at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL)—a heavily contaminated experimental reactor and rocket testing facility 30 miles from Los Angeles—and burned much of the site. Government assurances that the fire did not risk increased exposures to SSFL contamination have been met with distrust and skepticism, in part because the very entities claiming there was no toxic risk from the SSFL fire are the ones responsible for contaminating it in the first place and violating commitments to clean it up.

In the face of broad public rejection of official reassurances by the troubled state toxics agency,  community members near the SSFL will participate in an independent study of potential migration of contamination from the site following the Woolsey Fire. Fairewinds Energy Education, a non-profit organization founded by former nuclear industry scientists, will conduct the study of dust and soil samples collected from homes in the area and sent to an East Coast laboratory for analysis.

Government agency reassurances lack credibility in large measure because: Within hours of the fire, with no data whatsoever, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) issued a statement claiming there were no releases of radioactive or toxic materials.

DTSC claimed in a Nov. 9 statement that no contaminated areas of SSFL had burned. Subsequent satellite photos demonstrated that a large portion of the site did burn, much of it contaminated. DTSC then tried to walk back its initial false claims. Similarly, the US Department of Energy (DOE) initially claimed the fire hadn’t touched any of Area IV inside SSFL. When satellite photos also disproved this assertion, DOE retracted it.

Days after the fire at SSFL stopped, DTSC said it and others took measurements. But the primary concern was release of contamination in the smoke during the fire.

DTSC reported that its measurements, taken days after the fire, found no contamination even at SSFL. However, DTSC has for decades acknowledged the site is heavily contaminated, which is why extensive cleanup has been required in formal agreements between DTSC and the polluters. The US Environmental Protection Agency conducted a $40 million, multi-year study which found 500 locations at SSFL with elevated radioactivity.

Claims by DTSC that its post-fire measurements could find no contamination at SSFL even though extensive corporate pollution at the site is undisputed, suggests: (1) agency measurements are so insensitive the agency cannot detect contamination that is there; (2) DTSC is inflating background values to make additional contamination appear not to exist; and (3) it is lying about its actual results. If the measurements were somehow correct, and there is no longer any contamination at SSFL after the fire, it would mean the fire drove off existing contamination from the SSFL site and into the outlying communities. The agency’s claims of being unable to detect any contamination, even at the polluted SSFL sites, raise serious questions about the validity of DTSC’s statements.

The DTSC has failed to explain how a fire can burn hundreds of acres of contaminated vegetation growing in contaminated soil and not release some of those contaminants. It is a scientific impossibility. Community members and elected officials have repeatedly asked DTSC to disclose all data and methodology to back up its implausible assurances, but four weeks after the fire no data whatsoever have been released.

“DTSC says at some point it will release a summary of its conclusions, suggesting it is taking weeks to ‘massage’ the data,” said Denise Duffield, associate director of Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles. At a Nov. 15 press conference, Governor Brown said he too was “very skeptical” of assurances by his own agencies that there were no toxic releases from the fire at SSFL.

In the absence of credible, trustworthy government assessments of the risk of radioactive releases during the fire, the Fairewinds study will rely on “citizen scientists” and volunteers to carefully collect samples of dust or soil from area homes and property. Samples will be analyzed by the Fairewinds team, which released a detailed sampling protocol for the project. PSR-LA and Parents vs. SSFL have assembled a team of trained staff and volunteers to assist with sample collection. “I’m excited to be a part of this project and serve my community,” said Jeni Knack, a Simi Valley resident with prior training in sampling who will help lead field operations. “We’ve already received over 150 requests for sampling assistance from residents.”

Health advocates are grateful for the study, though they acknowledge its limitations. It occurs after the fire is over, when a primary risk was inhalation of radioactivity carried in the smoke while SSFL burned. The study will focus solely on radioactive materials, not the hundreds of toxic chemicals that have contaminated SSFL’s soil and vegetation. Further, it may not be possible to identify whether radioactive particles migrated before or after the fire. “We understand the study won’t address all concerns,” said Duffield. “Contamination from SSFL has been migrating off site for years, and now the Woolsey Fire may have caused even more migration.”

Melissa Bumstead, a West Hills resident whose young daughter has twice survived a rare leukemia she blames on SSFL, agrees. “Given what our family and our community have been through, it’s horrible that we even have to worry about potentially radioactive smoke and ash by the Woolsey Fire,” Bumstead said. Bumstead has mapped over 50 rare pediatric cancers in the area, and launched a Change.org petition for cleanup that at press time had been signed by over 531,000 people. “I don’t trust DTSC at all. They’re responsible for cleaning up the site’s contamination but they continue to benefit SSFL’s site-owner, Boeing, instead of the community.”

Community members and health advocates say that their focus now is ensuring that SSFL is finally and fully cleaned up. “Our greatest frustration is that if DTSC had kept its word, the site would be cleaned up by now and we wouldn’t have new worries related to the fire,” Duffield said. In 2010, DTSC signed agreements with the Department of Energy and NASA that committed them to clean up all detectable contamination in their operational areas by 2017. DTSC also in 2010 committed to require Boeing Corporation, which owns most of the site, to cleanup to comparable standards.

But the cleanup has not yet begun, and DTSC is currently considering proposals that could even leave all of SSFL’s contamination permanently on site. Boeing mounted a formidable greenwashing campaign against a full cleanup, and DTSC issued a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) last year indicating that much of the contamination would not be removed. Community members worry that if the DEIR is finalized, their hopes for the full, mandated cleanup will be dashed.

“We’re asking governor-elect Newsom to step in now,” Bumstead said, “We need him to direct DTSC to honor its cleanup commitments and radically reform that agency. They’ve failed us and other communities across California. We’re thankful to Fairewinds for getting involved and helping us make decisions based on trustworthy data.”

Residents interested in participating in the study can go to http://bit.ly/SSFLstudy to sign up. To sign the petition to get Santa Susana cleaned up click here.

—Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles has worked for the cleanup of SSFL for over 30 years, and Parents vs. SSFL is a grassroots group demanding full compliance with SSFL cleanup agreements as required by law.

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

December 31, 2018 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

White House Says Radiation Good for You

By John LaForge
Nukewatch Quarterly Winter 2018-19

“Bowing to the nuclear industry, the Trump administration appears to be relying on fringe researchers who reject mainstream science to roll back radiation safety laws,” the Natural Resources Defense Council Reports. “Despite substantial evidence that any level of ionizing radiation poses a cancer risk, the US Environmental Protection Agency is currently pursuing a little-noticed change that could lead to weaker protections for workers at nuclear plants, medical technicians conducting X-rays, and those living near Superfund sites contaminated by radioactive material,” the NRDC said Oct. 2, 2018.

The EPA’s “new proposal pulls from scientific outliers friendly to the nuclear industry who claim low-level exposure to this and other toxins could actually benefit the body. One problem: The National Academies of Science (NAS) and the EPA’s own scientists have studied this idea [known as ”hormesis”] and summarily dismissed it as bunk,” the group noted.

The NRDC was referring to NAS’s 7th edition of “Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation” (BEIR-VII), where it emphatically rejected “hormesis” as it has done many times. The NAS concluded that any radiation exposure, no matter how slight, carries a risk of causing cancer or other illnesses. The EPA itself has said for years on its website, “Based on current scientific evidence, any exposure to radiation can be harmful (or can increase the risk of cancer) … In other words, it is assumed that no radiation exposure is completely risk free.”

Dr. Peter Crane, a former Nuclear Regulatory Commission attorney told the New York Times in September 29, 2015, “[The NAS], along with the rest of mainstream scientific authority, regard hormesis as wholly without merit.”

The Associated Press noted last Oct. 2, “Critics say the proposed change could lead to higher levels of exposure … any members of the public who one day might find themselves exposed to a radiation release.”

The motive behind the EPA’s proposal was made clear by Edward Calabrese, a toxicologist at the Univ. of Massachusetts, who said in 2016, “This would have a positive effect on human health as well as save [industry] billions and billions and billions of dollars.” Ed Lyman, senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, told Courthouse News “the vast majority of scientific work” finds there is no acceptable level for radiation exposure. And if the administration uses the work of Calabrese it would be an example of choosing the outlier instead of what’s generally accepted.

There is no specific date for adoption of the new rule.

Filed Under: Environment, Newsletter Archives, Quarterly Newsletter, Radiation Exposure

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 129
  • 130
  • 131
  • 132
  • 133
  • …
  • 223
  • 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