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

July 18, 2014 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Duluth, Minn. Joins 52 Great Lakes Cities Opposed to Canadian Radioactive Waste Dump

Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2014

DULUTH, Minnesota — On May 12, Duluth, Minnesota City Councilors Sharla Gardner and Joel Sipress successfully introduced a resolution putting the city of 80,000 on record against a proposed radioactive waste dump on Lake Huron now under consideration by the Canadian government.

The resolution “to protect the Great Lakes, and its tributaries” rejects the rationale for a Deep Geologic Repository (DGR) and opposed “any other proposition for the construction of a nuclear waste repository within the Great Lakes Basin.” The additional sweep of the resolution is a reference to ongoing Canadian deliberations over the plausibility of four other radioactive waste dumps along the St. Lawrence Seaway. Duluth’s action was adopted by a vote of 8-to-1.

The move makes Duluth the 53rd city in the Great Lakes Watershed to formally reject the dump proposal. In addition, the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative — a group of over 100 cities in Canada and the United States — formally agreed in May 2013 that “the project should not move forward at this time.”

Chaired by Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, the Great Lakes cities initiative complained there was insufficient time to study the proposal and prepare comments, inadequate outreach to the Great Lakes community, and that “consideration of only one site that is one kilometer from Lake Huron” makes the plan unsupportable. — JML

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

July 18, 2014 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

After 28 Years, Still No Solutions at Chernobyl

Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2014

Twenty-eight years have passed since technicians at Chernobyl’s Unit 4 reactor accidentally set off an uncontrolled reaction early on the morning of April 26, 1986, releasing a huge radioactive plume that has affected some three billion people (and counting). Yet officials are still struggling to find a containment solution for the almost 200 tons of fuel — uranium and its highly radioactive fission by-products — and other highly radioactive materials that remain buried in the destroyed building. At least five tons of reactor fuel were released during the explosions and subsequent fire. 

Overwhelmed and unprepared for the magnitude of the disaster, Soviet officials threw large amounts of concrete and human power at the problem. Over half a million workers, many of them “volunteers” (including political prisoners and former dissidents) were involved in clean-up efforts, including construction of the initial concrete “sarcophagus” that still covers the site three decades later. Bulldozers, cranes and other equipment that was too contaminated to remove were simply buried in place. 

Though authorities declared at the time that it would last “for eternity,” the sarcophagus began leaking from almost the first day it was completed. Workers remaining onsite are tasked with pumping out radioactive rainwater that has been in contact with fuel rods inside. The Bulletin of Atomic the Scientists noted in September 1992 that “[t]he sarcophagus began cracking soon after it was built and must be strengthened or replaced. To complicate matters, the sarcophagus is also sinking into the earth, and the ground water is rather near the surface…” 

Last year, a section of the roof near the destroyed reactor collapsed, releasing radiation into the atmosphere. 

In 1995, the “Group of 7” nations agreed to finance a more long-term solution for dealing with the volatile disaster site in exchange for Ukraine’s cooperation in closing the two reactors that operated at the Chernobyl site until 2000. Finally, almost 20 years later, construction of a 20 million pound, $1.5 billion arch, designed to contain radioactive materials in the event of further degradation of the sarcophagus, is now half complete. The arch is designed to last 100 years, by which point officials hope to have a more permanent repository in place for the high-level waste. One proposal involves removing it from the disaster site in order to avoid contaminating the water supply of Kiev’s three million residents. 

It is still unclear where Ukraine will find funding for this “final” solution, and the technology for how it will be achieved has yet to be developed. Artur Korneyev, the radiation specialist who first alerted Western countries to the urgency of the problems with the sarcophagus, has doubts that long-term containment can ever be achieved. As he told the New York Times April 27, “There is not the technology available to access this fuel inside the unit. It’s really difficult because the pathways are obstructed.”

Of course, containing the fuel rods is just one of many daunting problems regional governments and the rest of the world must combat as a result of this particular nuclear power disaster. Belarus and Ukraine have spent more than an estimated $250 billion each in dealing with the aftermath of the catastrophe. No one knows the true magnitude of the deaths and health effects of the radiation release; one study has attributed more than one million deaths globally to Chernobyl. Only twenty percent of children in Belarus are considered well by official standards since the accident. And the genetic damage to the human population will persist, probably not peaking for many generations.

In early May, former tennis star Elena Baltacha became the latest person to die of cancer probably caused by the Chernobyl meltdown. The thirty-year-old athlete was just three years old when the accident happened at the reactor 90 miles from her home. She was diagnosed at the age of 19 with a chronic liver disease, which forced her to stay heavily medicated just to function on the tennis court. Her primary liver cancer was rare in the United Kingdom, where she lived for most of her life.

Researchers are only beginning to understand the human health effects of Chernobyl’s radiation, let alone the effects on the ecosystem. A study released this spring by researchers at the University of South Carolina and Universite Paris-Sud shows that because radiation harms microorganisms, the dead trees, plants and other organic matter affected by the radiation around Chernobyl do not decay nearly as quickly as those elsewhere. This creates an eerily intact landscape with 28 years’ worth of dead plant material that they fear will act as a radioactive tinderbox in the event of a forest fire, releasing plumes of radio-toxic smoke to population centers.

Despite Chernobyl’s legacy of terror, reactor operators around the world are still pushing increasingly unpopular plans for new nuclear power facilities. This April 26, over 1,000 people marched in the annual Chernobyl Way rally in Belarus, demanding a halt to construction of that country’s first nuclear power reactor, the Lukashenka facility in Astravets. Activists were detained after the rally, including one man — Yury Rubtsou — who engaged in a hunger strike to protest police brutality and judicial outrage during his 30 days in jail. Rubtsou was reportedly detained for wearing a T-shirt reading “Lukashenka, go away,” which the authorities seized. — ASP

— San Francisco Bay View, Feb. 25, 2012; Radio Free Europe, Nov. 04, 2013; Smithsonian magazine, Mar. 14; Live Science, Mar. 24; New York Times, Apr. 27; Charter 97, Apr. 28, May 26, & May 27; EcoWatch (Harvey Wasserman), May 4; the Express, May 5; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May 5, 2014 

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

July 18, 2014 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

NRC Denies Petition to Improve Reactor  Disaster Response

Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2014

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on April 9 formally denied a petition to make modest improvements in emergency planning for nuclear reactor accidents, saying the current zones are sufficient.

The petition called for increasing the size of the existing Emergency Planning Zone around commercial nuclear reactors from 10 to 25 miles, to create a new, 50-mile “Emergency Response Zone, and to expand the “Ingestion Pathway Zone” — where drinking water and food could become contaminated — from 50 to 100 miles.

The petition, filed Feb. 15, 2012 by the Nuclear Information Resource Service (NIRS) — 11 months after the start of the triple melt-through and massive radiation releases in Fukushima, Japan — was supported by 37 US environmental groups including Nukewatch. Over 3,200 people signed on as co-petitioners, and out of 5,993 comments sent to the NRC on the petition, 5,953 supported the proposal. The NRC denied the petition in its entirety.

“The NRC has failed the American people,” said Michael Mariotte of NIRS. “Rather than learn from Fukushima and act appropriately to protect the public, the agency has chosen to protect the nuclear power industry yet again.”

NIRS explained in the petition that the Ingestion Pathway Zone is meant to protect against the distribution of contaminated water, milk and other food. At Fukushima and Chernobyl, these basic necessities were intercepted from well over 100 miles away — in Chernboyl’s case, more than 1,000 miles. Yet the NRC insisted that its 50-mile zone is adequate.

As the Pottstown, Pennsylvania daily Mercury pointed out at the time of the Fukushima disaster, US officials told US citizens in Japan to evacuate a 50 miles radius around the triple reactor radiation catastrophe.

In addition, as NIRS reported in its petition, Japan was spared a far worse radiation disaster since 80 percent of the airborne radiation released at Fukushima — nearly 100 percent the first critical days — never passed over land. It was sent by the wind out over the Pacific Ocean.

Mariotte said, “The United States should not have to rely on favorable wind patterns as an emergency response measure.”

Tim Judson, NIRS’s Acting Executive Director, said in a press release, “Over the last 35 years, five nuclear reactors have had catastrophic accidents, all requiring evacuations, and four involving massive releases of radiation that have left large areas of land unsafe for human habitation. The Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents required much larger evacuations and emergency response measures than nuclear power stations and state and local governments in the US are currently prepared for.” 

— NIRS press release, April 9; Cape Cod Times online, May 2 & Apr. 10; & (Pottstown, PA) Mercury, May 2, 2014

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

July 18, 2014 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

WIPP Leak Traced to Kitty Litter Mishap

Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2014

After months of investigation, federal officials are finally closer to understanding what caused the February radiation leak at the Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP) in southeastern New Mexico — and the evidence points to organic kitty litter.

On May 5, crews from the Department of Energy (DOE) discovered melted plastic and rubber on one of the 55-gallon waste drums from the Los Alamos National Laboratory stored in Panel 7, Room 7 — the WIPP area suspected to be the origin of the leak. Photographs later taken in the storage area, which is carved into a massive salt bed 2,000 feet underground, show evidence that heat and probably a small explosion made a hole in at least one container, leading to the leak. One-ton bags of magnesium oxide, placed on top of waste containers to help stop the spread of leaks and designed to last 10,000 years, were also damaged.

Taken with a remote camera in panel 7, room 7 of the WIPP nuclear waste storage site on May 22, this Department of Energy photo shows damage to a radioactive waste barrel caused by a heat reaction between radioactive waste and an organic compound — probably kitty litter — packed inside.

Jim Conca, a scientist who worked at WIPP from 2000 to 2010, has publicly shared his theory that the reaction was caused by a change from non-organic to organic kitty litter, which is packed in the barrels to soak up any liquid waste. (WIPP’s congressional mandate only allows it to accept solid radioactive waste.)

Inorganic cat litter, made with materials like diatomaceous earth, can help stabilize nitrates in radioactive materials, ensuring they don’t become too hot, and is routinely used at nuclear laboratories. But Conca and others suspect organic cat litter was packed into about 500 barrels at the Los Alamos lab instead — probably due to a bad decision by a purchasing agent.

“‘Green’ cat litter is made with materials like wheat or corn,” according to Conca. “These organic litters do not have the silicate properties needed to chemically stabilize nitrate the correct way. Solutions can ignite when they dry out,” Conca said.

DOE officials confirmed May 22 that a change in kitty litter “may have caused a chemical reaction” that led to the February 14 release, which doused at least 22 WIPP workers with radiation and has caused the facility to remain closed. About 350 of the other barrels that contain the volatile organic litter are in storage alongside the unsealed barrel at WIPP, but some were diverted to a privately-run waste dump in Andrews, Texas, and some remain onsite at Los Alamos.

The Andrews dump has taken extra precautions to seal the unstable barrels at its site, but the fact that some remain above ground at the Los Alamos facility is troubling to Arnie Gundersen, Chief Engineer at Fairewinds Energy Education, who says the barrels will become more and more unstable as the New Mexico desert sun heats them. Los Alamos has been under a tight schedule to move its plutonium contaminated waste before the peak of wildfire season. In 2011, a massive wildfire reached the edges of the property where the waste is currently stored.

The New Mexico Environment Department issued an administrative order May 21 requiring the DOE and its contractor Nuclear Waste Partnership to submit a detailed plan for expedited closure of Panel 6 and Panel 7, Room 7, where the affected barrels are stored. A similar May 19 order required the Los Alamos National Lab to isolate all suspect waste drums. The Lab claims to have complied by keeping its remaining barrels under 24-hour surveillance in a fire-protected area. The State Environment Secretary has publicly vented his frustration with a lack of transparency on the part of the site’s federal operators.

The DOE has estimated it will take between 18 months and three years to have the WIPP site ready to resume full operations. This is the DOE’s first ever attempt to clean up a contaminated underground radioactive waste storage site, so its estimates are speculative.

Per Peterson of UC-Berkeley’s Department of Nuclear Engineering told The Verge May 23 that permanent shut-down of the $7.2 billion facility was a real possibility.

“Expert assessment will be needed … to determine whether the safety benefits of stabilizing or repackaging the material in these drums are justified by the risk to personnel who would attempt to do this work.”— ASP 

— Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Mar. 23; Nuclear Threat Initiative, Apr. 24; AP, May 8 & 17; Indian Country Today, May 9; Carlsbad Current Argus, May 12 & 23; Albuquerque Journal, May 15; CNN Video Interview with Arnie Gunderson, May 20; The Verge, May 23, 2014

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

July 18, 2014 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Canadian ‘Experts’ Comfy with Radioactive Pollution of Great Lakes 

Nukewatch Quarterly Summer 2014
By John LaForge 

The giant Canadian utility corporation Ontario Power Generation (OPG) — which operaties 20 nuclear reactors on the Great Lakes in Ontario — would save loads of cash by not having to contain, monitor and repackage above-ground storage casks for its radioactive waste. The company intends to deeply bury some of this waste next to Lake Huron, a source of drinking water for 40 million people including 24 million US residents. 

OPG officially plans to let its waste canisters leak their contents, 680 meters underground, risking long-term contamination of the Great Lakes. 

OPG’s formal plans and public statements make this clear. 

First, the near-lake dump would be dug into deep caverns of porous limestone. The underground caverns are to “become the container,” OPG testified last fall — because its canisters are projected to be rotted-through by the waste in five years. The company wants to bury 200,000 cubic meters of radioactive waste — everything except high-level waste fuel rods — but with a wide range of radioactivity levels. 

On April 13 the Canadian government was shocked to learn that OPG has grossly understated the radioactive severity of its waste material, some of which, like cesium, is 1,000 times more radioactive than OPG has officially claimed. 

The Bruce reactor complex — the world’s biggest with eight reactors — is on Lake Huron’s Bruce Peninsula and is now the storage site for radioactive waste (other than fuel rods) from all of OPG’s 20 reactors. Digging its 2,000 foot deep dump on site would save the firm money — and put the hazard out of sight, out of mind. 

Second, OPG’s blithe opinion about poison was broadcast in a December 2008 handout. Radioactive contamination of the drinking water would not be a problem, OPG says, because “The dose is predicted to be negligible initially and will continue to decay over time.” 

The ‘expert’ group’s report predicted that it’s possible that as much as 1,000 cubic meters of radioactively contaminated water might leach from the dump every year, but calls such pollution “highly improbable.” The mathematical basis for this “prediction” of “improbability” has to be considered in view of the US government’s 650-meter-deep Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP) in New Mexico. The WIPP dump was predicted to contain radiation for 10,000 years. It has failed disasterously, contaminating 22 workers on Feb. 14, after operating only 15 years. It may never reopen. 

OPG’s pamphlet goes further in answer to its own question, “Will the [dump] contaminate the water?” The company claims, “…even if the entire waste volume were to be dissolved into Lake Huron, the corresponding drinking water dose would be a factor of 100 below the regulatory criteria initially, and decreasing with time.”

Last September, I testified against the proposal at formal hearings in Kincardine, Ontario. This unsubstantiated assertion made me ask in my testimony: “Why would the government spend $1 billion on a dump when it is safe to throw all the radioactive waste in the water?” Now, what I thought of then as a rhetorical outburst has become “expert” opinion.

Experts: radiation to be “diluted” by Great Lakes 

On March 25, the “Report of the Independent Expert Group” was presented to Canada’s waste review panel. Experts Maurice Dusseault, Tom Isaacs, William Leiss and Greg Paoli concluded that the “immense” waters of the Great Lakes would dilute any radiation-bearing plumes leaching from the site. 

Dusseault advises governments and teaches short courses at the University of Waterloo on oil production, petroleum geomechanics, waste disposal and sand control.

Paoli founded Risk Sciences International and the company’s web site notes his position on Expert and Advisory Committees of Canada’s National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy. 

Isaacs, with degrees in engineering and applied physics, works at the plutonium-spewing Lawrence Livermore National Lab, studying “challenges to the effective management of the worldwide expansion of nuclear energy.” Of course, hiding radioactive waste from public scrutiny is one of his industry’s biggest challenges.

Leiss has degrees in history, accounting and philosophy, and has taught sociology, eco-research, risk communications and health risk assessment at several Canadian universities. 

So what level of expertise do the experts bring? None of them have any background in water quality, limnology, radio-biology, medicine, health physics or even radiology, hazardous nuclides, health physics, or radiation risk.

As the plume of radiation spreading across the Pacific from Fukushima continues to show, nuclear reactor disasters can contaminate entire oceans. Fish large and small and other organisms bio-accumulate the cesium, strontium (which persists for 300 years), etc., in the plume. The isotopes also bio-magnify in the food chain as blue fin and albacore tuna studies continue to show. 

Canada’s expert group’s opinion on how radioactive waste might spread and be diluted in Great Lakes drinking water is inane and meaningless — its cubic meter estimates and risk assessments nothing but fairy tales. You could call the report a rhetorical outburst. 

— Brennain Lloyd, Northwatch (North Bay, Ontario) email communication, Apr. 22; Toronto Star, Apr. 18, & Mar. 25, 2014

Filed Under: Lake Superior Barrels, Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Power, Quarterly Newsletter, Radiation Exposure, Radioactive Waste

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • …
  • 69
  • 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