Nukewatch

Working for a nuclear-free future since 1979

  • Issues
    • Weekly Column
    • Depleted Uranium
    • Direct Action
    • Lake Superior Barrels
    • Environmental Justice
    • North Korea
    • Nuclear Power
      • Chernobyl
      • Fukushima
    • Nuclear Weapons
    • On The Bright Side
    • Radiation Exposure
    • Radioactive Waste
    • Renewable Energy
    • Uranium Mining
  • 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
    • Workshops
  • Donate

October 10, 2014 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

New US Bomb-Building Biz

Nukewatch Quarterly Fall 2014

Hans Kristensen and Robert Norris report in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists that the Obama administration has approved development of a new nuclear warhead, the latest version of the B61 known as the B61-12.* If completed, it is to be used in future nuclear war planning involving gravity bombs.

The B61-12 is a 50-kiloton hydrogen bomb, 3.3 times the size of the Hiroshima bomb that incinerated seven square miles and 140,000 people in 1945. All else being equal, the new B61 could demolish 23 square miles, an area equivalent to the Island of Manhattan. In the bunker mentality of today’s nuclear war planning, this is called a “low yield” nuclear warhead.

The B61 has been a steady 50-year-old jobs program for the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. Bomb builders there have engineered 15 different versions of this warhead since 1963.

Five B61 versions are still in the stockpile: the B61-3, -4, -10 and (340 kiloton) -7; and the B61-11 “earth-penetrating” bomb (400 kilotons). The administration is planning to retire three of these and convert the B61-4 into the B61-12.

Of the roughly 820 B61s still in use today — 500 of which are versions -3, -4, and -10 — the Bulletin says only 300 are deployed at bases with B61-capable aircraft.

About 250 B61-7 and 50 B61-11 bombs are stored at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri and Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico.

The B61-12 has been in an engineering phase since 2013, and the first production bombs are set to roll out in 2020. About 480 could be built through the mid-2020s.

At a cost of about $12.2 billion (up from $4 billion in 2010, and $8 billion in 2012), the B61-12 is probably, the authors note, the most expensive nuclear bomb program in US history. At approximately $25 million apiece, and weighing 700 pounds, each one is estimated to cost more to produce than if it were made of solid gold ($14.6 million).

Approximately 180 of the B61 Mods 3 and 4 are still deployed at six bases in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey, the United States being the only state in the world to deploy nuclear weapons offshore.

Writing in Foreign Affairs, Barry Blechman and Russell Rumbaugh point out that, “One NATO exercise in 1962 estimated that 10-15 million German civilians would be killed in a tactical nuclear exchange.”+

Even the US’s European Command (EUCOM) has given up “advocating for maintaining nuclear weapons in Europe,” the authors report, and EUCOM leaders told an oversight task force in 2008 there would be “no military downside to the unilateral withdrawal of nuclear weapons from Europe.” The task force review quoted one senior US military official saying “… they have no military value.”

According to Blechman and Rumbaugh, former Secretary of Defense “Colin Powell favored abandoning them in the 1990s when he was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” and other “prominent critics … have long argued that the military rationale for keeping nuclear weapons in Europe is an anachronism.” — JL 

* “The B61 family of nuclear bombs,” The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May 2, 2014

+ “Bombs Away: The Case for Phasing Out US Tactical Nukes in Europe,” Foreign Affairs, July/Aug. 2014.

Filed Under: Military Spending, Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Weapons, Quarterly Newsletter

October 10, 2014 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

 Waste Isolation Pilot Project Fire and Explosion: Behind the Failure of the Country’s Only High-Level Waste Disposal Site 

Nukewatch Quarterly Fall 2014
By Arianne Peterson 

“The accident was a horrific comedy of errors. This was the flagship of the Energy Department, the most successful program it had. The ramifications of this are going to be huge,” said James Conca, senior scientist with UFA Ventures Inc. and Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) expert, quoted in an August Los Angeles Times article. Conca is referring to the February 2014 truck fire, the radiation leak and worker contamination that has indefinitely closed WIPP, near Carlsbad, New Mexico, the nation’s only high-level radioactive waste storage facility. Since the Quarterly reported on these incidents in the Spring and Summer 2014 issues, new information on the operational negligence that led to the accidents has come to light, though some details of the leak itself remain a mystery.

Early Warnings Ignored 

After a truck caught fire in the underground salt mine where nuclear waste is stored at WIPP February 5th, the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Environmental Management immediately launched an investigation into the cause of the accident. Their initial observations should have resulted in a prompt shutdown and full safety review of the facility, which could have prevented the barrel explosion and subsequent radiation leak of February 14. Instead, the site’s federal managers opted not to interrupt the stream of radioactive waste that flowed into WIPP from cleanup of Cold War-era bomb laboratories across the country.

The barrel that exploded and led to the above-ground radiation leak was eventually identified as having been packed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The accident put at least 150 workers in danger and resulted in the internal contamination of at least 22.

The novel and untested use of an organic kitty litter compound — that reacts with nuclear waste — in the packing of hundreds of barrels, is widely suspected to be the cause of the eruption. It turns out that the federal government had identified serious safety issues at LANL well before the WIPP incident. In the DOE’s Fiscal Year 2013 Annual Report on Nuclear Criticality Safety, released July 14, LANL received a “does not meet expectations” rating in overall performance of its criticality safety program. (“Criticality” is an uncontrolled explosion or “fissioning” of plutonium or uranium.) According to the report, LANL committed 38 criticality safety infractions in the calendar year 2013 and was the only National Nuclear Security Administration site to receive the negative rating of “inadequate but improving performance.”

Apparently, the ill-advised decision to change the packing compound in the barrels was made by EnergySolutions, a DOE contractor. However, the New Mexico Environmental Department has obtained emails that reveal that LANL — the government’s premier national radiological weapons laboratory — approved the use of the product even though its instructions clearly warned against use with metallic nitrates, which are found in nuclear waste. In August 2013, EnergySolutions’ industrial hygienist wrote an email asking for approval to use a new material in order to neutralize acids and bases in the drums. His email said that “criticality safety issues are not my area of expertise” and “it may be advisable to have LANL personnel weigh in on these issues as well.” According to research done by the Albuquerque Journal, a subcontractor’s technical representative for LANL environmental programs approved the kitty litter change in an email copied to eight other people.

DOE Fails on Nuclear Oversight, Rewards Contractor Negligence 

The more information comes to light about the situation surrounding the WIPP accident, the more obvious it becomes that a disastrous accident like this February’s — or worse — was inevitable. As New Mexico’s Environmental Department Secretary Ryan Flynn said last May, “It doesn’t really matter who is to blame. … They all work for DOE.” And the DOE allowed a culture of gross negligence to corrupt quality control and increase radiation risks ever since WIPP began receiving radioactive waste in 1999.

In 2006, the DOE inexplicably requested a greatly reduced chemical testing regime for the waste entering WIPP. According to Don Hancock of the watchdog group Southwest Research and Information Center in Albuquerque, “In 2013, all of the real inspections of the containers at all the generating sites were stopped. So almost for the last year, there hasn’t been a requirement for shipments to WIPP to have more than paperwork for the containers.”

The deep underground WIPP storage site consists of several different storage rooms carved out of a large salt deposit, which make up larger units called panels. Workers were in the process of filling Panel 7 when the explosion occurred in one of the rooms. The logic of storing high-level radioactive waste at WIPP rests on the idea that the salt will eventually compress, encompass and seal the waste for at least 10,000 years. In the meantime, the first panels filled with waste — Panels 1, 2, and 5 — were sealed with a 12-foot concrete “explosion isolation wall.” Panels 3 and 4, closed more recently, were only sealed with a steel bulkhead without an explosion isolation wall. At the time of the barrel eruption, Panel 6 — next door to the explosion — had been filled with radioactive waste, but not sealed as the facility’s design dictates, leaving it vulnerable to the spread of contamination.

Part of the reason that the specific chemical compound inside the exploded barrel has not yet been confirmed six months after the incident is that the storage site’s managers have failed in documenting the details of which barrels were stored where. As they were struggling to identify contaminated barrels without being able to send anyone underground, investigators discovered that electronic records of what was in the drums had not been kept up-to-date with deliveries. Making matters worse, no security cameras had been installed that would have allowed operators to monitor the contaminated area.

Four percent of the waste at WIPP is so radioactive that it can only be remotely handled using robots. One former WIPP official, reporting on attempts to correct the inventory problems, said, “We would know if it had to be ‘remote handled’ but what was inside a canister was not updated in the computer database. We knew if a canister was dangerous, but not how dangerous. If a canister contained a large enough amount of certain elements, there could be the threat of fire or explosion. The DOE sites that sent in the waste got careless in documenting what was being shipped in… The contractors at the sites packing the waste were not exactly meticulous. When we complained to DOE, it was made clear we were just to keep taking the waste and to shut up,” according to Natural Resource News Service.

A preliminary DOE investigation found more than 30 oversight lapses at WIPP, and said “degradation of key safety management programs and safety culture resulted in the release of radioactive material from the underground to the environment.” Part of the “degradation” included 12 of 40 phones in the huge complex being out of service. Ironically, the DOE never required WIPP — a radioactive waste dump — to bring its ventilation system up to radiation control standards. When the radiation leak was detected, dampers were immediately supposed to close and begin filtering the cavern’s air, thereby preventing above ground releases. However, the dampers leaked and thousands of cubic feet of radioactively contaminated air escaped. Apparently, DOE employees on site at the time resorted to using spray foam to keep the radiation from leaking further.

On the night of the leak, the first high-radiation alarm sounded at 11:14 p.m. According to the DOE investigation, control room managers were unable to find the responsible on-call radiation control expert when the alarm sounded. Not until ten hours later, about 9:30 a.m., did managers order the approximately 150 workers on the surface of the site to move to a safe location. It took another three hours to set up an emergency operation center.

In late August, New Mexico state officials revealed that regulators had failed to collect air samples in the week following the radiation release — because of a vacancy in the office responsible for monitoring the site at the time. A US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) review of air testing done at WIPP in February and March found a mix of discrepancies in recorded times and dates of sample collections, flawed calculation methods, conflicting data, and missing documents. In fact, the EPA found that WIPP told the public that air samples contained no detectable levels of radiation when measurable levels were present, effectively lying about the severity of the leak.

In a move that added insult to injury, only five days after the truck fire closed WIPP, and four days before the barrel explosion, the DOE presented the contractor that operates the facility — Nuclear Waste Partnership, run by three nuclear industry giants — a $1.9 million award for “excellent” performance during the past year. The award was given in addition to a $5.9 million “performance based” incentive awarded earlier in the year. The $7.8 million represents earnings above the amount DOE reimburses the NWP for the annual cost of operating WIPP, a reported $142 million last fiscal year and $158 million this year. A letter from the DOE’s Carlsbad Field Office cited the NWP’s “excellent” or “very good” performance in all four of the areas evaluated including safety and maintenance.

In June, Carlsbad DOE field office spokesman Tim Runyon said, “The Department is not considering revision or termination of the contract pending the results of the radiological release investigation.” Indeed, there seems not to have been even a slap on the wrist for the contractor, despite the investigation’s damning conclusions. The only penalty that resulted from the accident, according to a WIPP spokesperson, has been a $2 million, or 25 percent, reduction in the nearly $8.2 million fee available in fiscal year 2014. (Remember, this is above and beyond reimbursement for operating costs.) And, NWP can earn back 50 percent of that penalty with good performance. (You have to wonder, what bad performance look like?)

Waste Shipped to Texas 

After WIPP’s radiation release, and in an attempt to meet an arbitrary removal deadline, LANL pushed its contractors to move the remaining waste containers packed with the reactive compound to a private low-level waste storage site in Texas. A few hundred of the barrels were sent to the neighboring state’s facility, run by Waste Control Specialists (WCS), before DOE investigators put a stop to the shipments. LANL has agreed to pay WCS $8 million for storing the volatile drums.

Chuck McDonald, a WCS representative, said in an interview that the Texas site had turned down earlier high-level waste shipments from LANL because its license is only for low-level waste. Prior to receiving the barrels that were rerouted from WIPP, WCS had received multiple warnings for accepting waste too hot for its permit. Now there is legislation pending in Texas that would allow WCS to accept highly radioactive waste. In late August, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality approved changes to the WCS license that would more than triple the amount of waste the site can accept and reduce the amount of money the company would need to have on hand to address an accident like the one at WIPP (or worse) — leaving the remainder of the financial liability to taxpayers.

When the DOE designed WIPP as the “solution” to the problem of military radioactive waste, it estimated the risk of a radioactive release at one event every 200,000 years — not one every 15 years — according to former Assistant Energy Secretary Robert Alvarez. Official estimates of the cost of the accident have not been released, but experts and an Los Angeles Times analysis indicate it could approach $1 billion. In August, Energy Secretary Ernest J. Moniz reassured worried residents at a Carlsbad town hall meeting that he would ensure the future safety of the facility: “You stick with us, and we’re sticking with you,” Moniz said.

With no end in sight to the stream of radioactive waste from weapons production and used nuclear reactor fuel, we’re all stuck. But there is no excuse for the kind of negligence that put the public in danger in February.

— Natural Resource News Service, June 5; The New Mexican (Santa Fe), July 15; Albuquerque Journal, July 20; AP, Aug. 21; Reuters, Aug. 22; Los Angeles Times, Aug. 23, 2014

 

 

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

October 10, 2014 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Childhood Leukemia Cases Up 37% Near Nuclear Reactors

Another Major Study Shows Consistent Correlation Between Cancer Incidence and Proximity to Operating Reactors 
Nukewatch Quarterly Fall 2014
By Ian Fairlie, The Ecologist 

Controversy has been raging for decades over the link between nuclear power stations and childhood leukemia. But as with tobacco and lung cancer, it’s all about hiding the truth. Combining data from four countries shows, with high statistical significance, that radioactive releases from nuclear reactors are the cause of the excess leukemia cases.

I can think of no other area of toxicology (e.g. asbestos, lead, smoking) with so many studies, and with such clear associations as those between nuclear power reactors and child leukemias.

In March 2014, after a year-long peer review process, my article on increased rates of childhood leukemias near nuclear reactors was published in the Journal of Environmental Radioactivity.1

My previous article — “Childhood Leukemias Near Nuclear Power Stations”2 — discussed the making of the article and its high readership: this article describes its content in non-technical terms.

Before we start, some background is necessary to grasp the new report’s significance. Many readers may be unaware that increased childhood leukemias near reactors have been a contentious issue for several decades.

For example, it was a huge issue in the UK in the 1980s and early 1990s, leading to several TV programs, government commissions, government committees, a major international conference, government reports, at least two mammoth court cases and probably over a hundred scientific articles.

It was refueled in 1990 by the publication of the famous Gardner report on lymphoma in young people near Sellafield, which found a very large increase (seven fold) in child leukemias near the nuclear facility in Cumbria, England.3

Over 60 epidemiological studies confirm the link 

The controversy may have subsided in England, but it is still hotly debated in most European countries, especially Germany.

The core issue is that, world-wide, over 60 epidemiological studies have examined cancer incidences in children near reactors: almost 70% of them indicate leukemia increases.

Yet many governments and the nuclear industry refute these findings and continue to resist their implications. It’s similar to the situations with cigarette smoking in the 1960s and with climate change causation nowadays.

In early 2007, the debate was partly rekindled by the renowned KiKK study4 commissioned by the German government, which found a 60% increase in total cancers and 120% increase in leukemias among children under five years old living within five kilometers of all German reactors.

What is “statistically significant”? 

As a result of Germany’s surprising findings, governments in France, Switzerland and England hurriedly set up studies near their own reactors. All found leukemia increases, but because their numbers were small the increases lacked “statistical significance.” That is, you couldn’t be 95% sure the findings weren’t chance ones.

This does not mean there were no increases. Indeed if less strict statistical tests had been applied, the results would have been “statistically significant.”

But most people are easily bamboozled by statistics — including scientists who should know better — and the strict 95% level tests were eagerly grasped by governments wishing to avoid unwelcome findings. Indeed, many tests nowadays in this area use a 90% level. In such situations, scientists need to combine data-sets in a meta-study, to get larger numbers and thus reach higher levels of statistical significance.

Governments wouldn’t study it — so we did 

The four governments refrained from doing this because they knew what the answer would be. Namely: statistically significant increases in cancer cases near almost all reactors in the four countries. So Alfred Korblein and I did it for them.5 Sure enough, there were statistically significant increases near all the reactors. Sure enough, there were statistically significant increases. The table on page 6 reveals a highly significant 37% increase in childhood leukemias within five kilometers of almost all power reactors in the UK,Germany, France and Switzerland.

It’s perhaps not surprising that the latter three countries have announced reactor phase-outs and withdrawals. It is only the UK government that remains in denial.

So the matter is now beyond question. There is a very clear association between increased child leukemias and proximity to reactors. The question remains: What causes them?

Observed risk 10,000 times greater than “expected” 
Playing and fishing near California’s shut-down San Onofre reactors, where 2,600 highly radioactive waste fuel assemblies now crowd a cooling pool built for 1,600. Photo: Allan J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times

Most people worry about radioactive emissions and direct radiation from the reactors, however any theory involving radiation has a major difficulty to overcome: How to account for the large (about 10,000 fold) discrepancy between official dose estimates from reactor emissions and the clearly-observed increased risks?

My explanation does involve radiation. It stems from KiKK’s principal finding that the increased incidences of infant and child leukemias were closely associated with proximity to the reactor chimneys.

It also stems from the KiKK study’s observation that the increased solid cancers were mostly “embryonal,” i.e. babies were born either with solid cancers or with pre-cancerous tissues which, after birth, developed into full-blown tumors: this actually happens with leukemia as well.

My explanation has five main elements:

  • First: The cancer increases may be due to radiation exposures from radioactive emissions to air from reactors.
  • Second: Large annual spikes in reactor emissions may result in increased dose rates to populations within five kilometers of the reactors.
  • Third: Observed cancers may arise in utero in pregnant women.
  • Fourth: Both the doses and their risks to embryos and to fetuses may be greater than the current estimate.
  • Fifth: Pre-natal blood-forming cells in bone marrow may be unusually radiosensitive.

Together these five factors offer a possible explanation for the discrepancy between estimated radiation doses from reactor releases and the risks observed by Germany’s KiKK study. These factors are discussed in considerable detail in the full article.

No errors or omissions have been pointed out 

My article in fact shows that the current discrepancy can be explained. The leukemia increases observed by the KiKK study and by many others may arise in utero as a result of embryonal/fetal exposures to incorporated radionuclides from reactors’ radioactive emissions.

Large emission spikes from reactors [as during refueling operations] might produce a pre-leukemic clone, and, after birth, a second radiation hit might transform a few of these clones into full-blown leukemia cells. The affected babies are born pre-leukemic (which is invisible) and the full leukemias are only diagnosed within the first few years after birth.

To date, no letters to the Journal of Environmental Radioactivity have been received pointing out errors or omissions in this report.

— Dr. Ian Fairlie, an independent consultant on radioactivity in the environment, was Chief Secretariat of Britain’s CERRIE group which examines internal radiation risks. 

Notes 

1 Fairlie, “A hypothesis to explain childhood cancers near nuclear power plants,” Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, Vol. 133 (2014). <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265931X13001811>

2 Fairlie, “Childhood Leukemias Near Nuclear Power Stations” (July 25, 2014). <www.ianfairlie.org/news/childhood-leukemias-near-nuclear-power-stations-482-downloads>

3 Gardner, et al, “Results of case-control study of leukaemia and lymphoma among young people near Sellafield nuclear plant in West Cumbria,” British Medical Journal, Vol. 300 (1990); and Bunch, et al, “Updated investigations of cancer excesses in individuals born or resident in the vicinity of Sellafield and Dounreay,” British Journal of Cancer (July 22, 2014). <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25051410>

4 Kaatsch, et al, “Leukaemia in young children living in the vicinity of German nuclear power plants” (the KiKK study), International Journal of Cancer, Vol. 122, No. 4 (2008) <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.23330/full>

5 Körblein and Fairlie, “French Geocap study confirms increased leukaemia risks in young children near nuclear power plants,” International Journal of Cancer, Vol. 131, No. 12 (2012).

6 Spycher, et al, “Childhood cancer and nuclear power plants in Switzerland: A census based cohort study,” International Journal of Epidemiology (July, 12, 2011). <http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/07/11/ije.dyr115.full>

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

March 2, 2013 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Authorities Dismiss Coldwater Creek Cancer Cluster

February March 2013 Nukewatch Quarterly

When it comes to understanding the incredible concentration of cancers, birth defects, and other serious ailments related to a Manhattan Project-era radioactive waste dumping ground in north St. Louis County, Facebook has proven a far better resource for current and former residents than the State of Missouri.

A report released by the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services in March concluded that elevated cancer rates near Flourissant, Missouri, are probably not linked to the radioactive waste dumped in the area from 1947 through the 1970s. Researchers studied the prevalence of 27 types of cancer among those who lived within six zip codes surrounding Coldwater Creek from 1996 to 2004. Though epidemiologists did identify an elevated incidence of some cancers among the population, they attributed those higher rates to socioeconomic factors such as smoking, lack of exercise, poor diet, and diabetes.

Flourissant natives Janell Rodden Wright and Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, who are part of the Facebook group that connects residents of the Coldwater Creek area affected by illness, called the study “completely uninformative” in a recent piece published in the St. Louis Beacon. They point out that according to the American Community Survey from 2007-2011, over 75% of those who live in one of the zip codes studied moved there after 1990 – when clean-up efforts were already underway. The study did not account for any cases of cancer in those who were diagnosed after they moved outside the area, which Wright and Schanzenbach say is the case with most of their classmates. State cancer registries only record a patient’s address at the time of diagnosis. Also ignored by the Department of Health report were the many cases of cancer among current residents diagnosed after 2004, as well as many non-cancer health issues.

When Wright, Schanzenbach, and their childhood friends swam in Coldwater Creek near their homes in Flourissant, MO, in the 1970s and 1980s, they had no idea they were immersing themselves in water tainted with radioactive waste. In fact, until Wright and her classmates began to investigate the strange prevalence of rare cancers and other diseases among their peer group in 2011, they had no idea the area where they grew up had served as a dumping ground for radioactive waste produced by Mallinckrodt Chemical Works at its downtown St. Louis plant, which purified uranium that the U.S. used to create atomic bombs in the 1940s.

Wright became suspicious when two of her friends were diagnosed with appendix cancer within a few months of each other. Both were told this disease is very rare, afflicting one in a million people. She reached out to others who grew up in the area through Facebook, and the results are astonishing. Among those who had lived within a four square mile area near the creek, over 2,000 cases of cancers, autoimmune disorders, thyroid disease, birth defects (including three cases of conjoined twins), and health issues among children (including seven children of Wright’s classmates who had their thyroid removed before age 10) have been reported. Twenty-two cases of appendix cancer have now been reported.

The group’s google map showing the residence or former residence of those who have died or fallen ill shows an alarming cluster of cases around Coldwater Creek and the St. Louis Airport Site (SLAPS), Hazelwood Interim Storage Site (HISS), Futura Property, and West Lake Landfill where waste was dumped or stored. Once elevated levels of radioactive materials were discovered in Coldwater Creek in 1989, the Army Corps of Engineers was charged with its clean-up, which they report is nearly complete. As Nukewatch reported in the Winter 2012 article “Cold War Era Dumps Heating Up St. Louis,” the West Lake Landfill, where 20 acres of radioactive waste was illegally dumped in 1973, contains over 15 feet of radioactive waste, and its temperature is rising at an alarming rate. The landfill’s neighbors complain of terrible smells and emissions that burn eyes and cause headaches. Current and former residents of the Coldwater Creek area had hoped that a conclusive cancer cluster study would help them qualify for the same “downwinder” status granted to those affected by atomic bomb testing in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah, which would have given them access to medical assistance.

Three separate groups of affected residents have brought lawsuits against Mallinckrodt Chemical, which is now owned by Covidien Pharmaceuticals, seeking damages comparable to those awarded to the company’s former St. Louis plant workers, who are eligible for coverage of medical expenses plus $150,000. On March 27, a federal judge dismissed seven of the suits’ eight claims. The single remaining claim will require residents to prove their injuries occurred no more than five years before the suits were filed, based on Missouri’s statute of limitations laws. Still, the groups’ lawyers are optimistic that justice will be served. In a statement released after the judge’s dismissal, lead counsel Marc Bern said, “We expect to prevail for these innocent victims and end this terrible nightmare for so many people.”

Though their plight remains unrecognized by the government, those affected by the Coldwater Creek radiation are taking grassroots action to uncover the truth and serve as resources for each other. Their Facebook page, “Coldwater Creek – Just the Facts Please,” is a testament to the power of grassroots organizing: its members share legal and medical resources, coping strategies, action alerts, and an unwavering commitment to helping each other deal with an enormous tragedy that comprises only a very small portion of the U.S. government’s atomic bomb legacy.

Sources: KSDK News, St. Louis, Feb. 1; St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Mar. 21, Mar. 29; St. Louis Beacon, Mar. 26

Filed Under: Direct Action, Environment, Newsletter Archives, Nuclear Weapons, Radiation Exposure, Radioactive Waste

December 2, 2012 by Nukewatch Leave a Comment

Cold War Era Dumps Heating Up St. Louis

Winter 2012 Nukewatch Quarterly

By Bonnie Urfer

Imagine living next to a landfill containing household garbage, industrial chemicals and jet fuel. Then picture an unlined radioactive waste dump next to and on top of the landfill. Finally, consider that the landfill’s temperature is unnaturally rising and that the heat may affect buried radioactive material.

This is the situation at the 200-acre West Lake Landfill (WLL) in Bridgeton, Missouri, northwest of Lambert Airport in St. Louis. The West Lake Co. accepted waste from the Hazelwood area east of the airport in the early 1970s in a typical industry shell-game. Mallinckrodt Chemical Co., Contemporary Metals, the Cotter Corporation, Dow Chemical and other firms were involved in Cold War uranium processing here and dumped their wastes haphazardly.

Neighbors complain of terrible smells and emissions that burn eyes and cause headaches. An investigation has not uncovered the cause of the problem, although authorities report that the dump’s temperature is rising and threatens to disturb the radioactive waste buried there. Phoenix-based Republic Services now operates the landfill and has drilled wells to allow gases and vapors to escape, but the same wellheads show a dramatic increase in temperatures over the past four months. WLL, with its mass of radioactive and toxic waste 15 feet deep, is just two miles from the Missouri River and sits in its broad flood plain.

Residents of Bridgeton have met to determine what can be done about the 20 acres of radioactive refuse dumped illegally in 1973. The Environmental Protection Agency promises public meetings in January to address the situation. The EPA and Republic favor keeping the dump as is, since the contamination is so widespread that any attempt to move it could make the situation worse and cost $400 million.

Other dumps around St. Louis facing lawsuits over cleanup include the Madison Site, just across the Mississippi River in Illinois; the North St. Louis County Site; the St. Louis Downtown Site; the St. Louis Airport Sites and Coldwater Creek.

— KMOV TV, Oct. 29; KTVI News, St. Louis, Nov. 13; St. Louis Post Dispatch, Mar.14, 2012; Washington University, Feb. 18, 2010; Missouri Dept. of Natural Resources, “West Lake Landfill,” Hazardous Waste Program, undated report.

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

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 140
  • 141
  • 142

Stay Connected

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Subscribe

Donate

Facebook

Categories

  • B61 Bombs in Europe
  • Chernobyl
  • 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
  • Quarterly Newsletter
  • Radiation Exposure
  • Radioactive Waste
  • Renewable Energy
  • 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

© 2021 · Nukewatch