Water IS Life: Stop Polluting the Pacific Ocean!
Today, we observe the 6th anniversary of the ongoing nuclear disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station in Japan. Six years after what is arguably the world’s worst nuclear disaster, one which was avoidable even under the extraordinary conditions of the massive earthquake and tsunami of March 11, 2011, Japan’s destroyed reactors continue to dump between 300-400 tons of water contaminated with radionuclides daily into the Pacific Ocean. These radioactive discharges not only represent an immediate health threat to the local bio-systems, they have now been detected with certainty as far away as the U.S. Pacific West Coast.
After 6 years we have seen:
- the failure of the ice wall containment to keep radioactive run-off water out of the Pacific Ocean;
- the ever growing contaminated water tank farms;
- confirmation of three complete core melts, with no idea how to clean them up;
- government imposition of radiation standards on the general population of Japan, especially young school children most vulnerable to the effects of radiation, many times greater than those allowed for nuclear plant workers in Europe and North America;
- accusations taken to the United Nations of human rights violations perpetrated against children and women in Japan from the contaminated areas;
- corruption complaints against the numerous private contractors conducting the so-called cleanup efforts;
- and finally, the daily flow of 400 tons of radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean – the WORLD’S largest body of surface water.
In spite of Japan’s best efforts, it is clear that no substantive progress has been made, and no solution is in sight. Fukushima is now a WORLD catastrophe. It requires a WORLD intervention.
In essence Japan’s inability to contain the ongoing Fukushima disaster constitutes a crime against humanity, one that will last far into the future. It also demonstrates Japan’s inability to get the situation under control on its own, a situation which therefore calls for international intervention – voluntarily accepted or not; and/or sanctions from the world community whose health and future the continued contamination jeopardizes.
As we learned this past year at Oceti Sakowin (Standing Rock), “Water is Life;” and the Pacific Ocean is the WORLD’S water. Japan must consider internationalization of the continued efforts to stop the Fukushima catastrophe. We feel there is no choice remaining but to petition the United Nations to create an international intervention team to stop the ongoing contamination of the Pacific Ocean, and of Japan.
Letter to the Editors
The “nuclear hostage crisis” is finally over. Governor Rauner and the Illinois Legislature has ordered all Illinois ratepayers to pay the $2.35 billion ransom to Exelon Corporation over the next ten years, ostensibly to save the ~1,500 jobs at the Clinton and Quad Cities nuclear reactors. That amounts to $1.57 million for each job “saved.” Heckuva job, Raunie!
But this threat of job loss has only been postponed not eliminated. Every operating reactor has an inevitable ending hanging over it known as its operating license termination date – the date beyond which the Nuclear Regulatory Commission says, “Game over, lights out!” That date is publicly available, and was known in advance for Clinton and Quad, and for all other Illinois reactors – meaning that every reactor community in Illinois will at some point be going through the same psychodrama that unfolded around Clinton and Quad Cities recently.
Make no mistake – the impact of Exelon’s closure threats were real, needed to be taken seriously, and would have been hugely painful to those communities. Loss of jobs, reduced tax base and reduction of public services are all very real effects experienced by the Zion community when ComEd closed those reactors in 1998, effects from which it still has not recovered, according to Mayor Al Hill.
Responsible governance calls for this never happening again. Responsible governance calls for pro-active plans to insure that workers are protected, and local tax bases are not decimated overnight by legally allowed corporate caprice. Illinois needs a “reactor exit strategy” in place BEFORE the next nuclear hostage crisis occurs.
Gov. Rauner said he supported the Exelon bailout because, “closing the plants would have “devastated the two communities.” If he really and truly believes that, then he should have worked to bail out the potentially devastated communities, not the hugely profitable Exelon corporation.
For over 2 years our organization argued that the State must insist that a “just transitions” program be instituted to protect reactor (and perhaps coal) communities from the withdrawal of “company town” utilities like Exelon. Absent such a proactive plan, this “bailout tango” will be repeated in the future when Byron, LaSalle, Dresden and Braidwood start to become “unprofitable” for Exelon.
We spelled out potential funding mechanisms, which are eminently negotiable. We left copies of this plan at the offices of over 40 legislators and state officials, including Governor Rauner’s office, Rep. Madigan’s office, Sen. Cullerton’s office, the AG’s office, and numerous individual legislators including Sen. Radogno, the Clean Jobs Bill sponsors, and others. We personally gave copies to Sen. Chapin Rose who represents the Clinton community, and representatives from the Quad Cities chamber of commerce and City Administrator of Clinton. We made it part of our testimony before the House and Senate Energy Committees. We urged that it become a topic of discussion and negotiation in the recently enacted legislation.
Evidently. legislators love 6-hour public hearings, and annual bailout proceedings. It’s much easier to pass the bills along to disempowered ratepayers than to engage in responsible governance.
Already, Exelon has announced to Bloomberg Press that it’s possible that the Byron nuclear station could become economically challenged as early as 2017. We asked legislators during the House Energy Committee hearing on the Exelon bailout if they will convene more six hour hearings to debate more bailouts when Dresden becomes challenged, or Braidwood, or LaSalle. Then, they can start with the coal communities. Or alternately, they can plan ahead for the inevitable.
Now that Exelon has received its pound of flesh, the public needs protection. The Spring legislative session would not be too soon to enact a “just transitions” provision that protects both communities affected by powerplant closures, and Illinois ratepayers now forced to pay ransom to delay them.
But then, that would require governance. And this is Illinois.
An old Mark Twain adage states that a falsehood gets half-way around the world before Truth gets its boots on. Its wisdom and accuracy is thoroughly proven – by the fact that Mark Twain was probably not the one who said this.
The wisdom of the adage has again been amply demonstrated by recent articles written by pro-nuclear advocates calling for the bailout of money-losing nuclear plants based on the dubious contention that they are needed to combat climate change.
While this contention is flat out wrong, it does prove yet another adage: “Never send in an engineer when you need an economist.”
The recent guest letter in the Cleveland.com/Cleveland Plain Dealer by Henry Spitz, a professor in nuclear and radiological engineering at the University of Cincinnati College of Engineering and Applied Science  has made claims that are contestable at best, flat out wrong at worst concerning both the need to bail out failing nuclear plants to combat climate change, and that recent events in Illinois and New York demonstrate that environmentalists and legislatures are somehow endorsing this position. Upton Sinclair warnings aside, his interpretation of events is quite erroneous.
In the case of the Illinois example he cites, he claims, “Illinois recognized the value of nuclear power to meeting its clean energy goals by adopting a zero emission standard.”  This glib pronouncement totally ignores the complex and often irrational political process that created that outcome.
Exelon Corporation originally created a “nuclear hostage” crisis in Illinois by using the threat of job loss to try to get the legislature to pass a multi-billion dollar nuclear bailout during election years; and the fig-leaf, after the fact “benefit” that nuclear plants were necessary to meet the state’s anticipated EPA carbon footprint reduction goals. Over several years the Company’s political strategy rationales for the nuclear bailout changed in substance and frequency as much as did the explanations for why we invaded Iraq back in 2003. In the end Exelon’s final motive was reported in Crain’s Chicago Business on Nov. 11, 2016 :
“Exelon now has dubbed the legislation, which still hasn’t been introduced officially, as the Future Energy Jobs Bill. That underscores the company’s emphasis on preserving and creating jobs rather than the environmental benefits of keeping nuclear plants open.
“The bill “was not driven by the Clean Power Plan, although it had meeting those goals as an added benefit,” Exelon said in a statement. “This bill is about economics—both for Illinois consumers and for the state’s future prospects for economic development.” 
This telling statement was made after Exelon attempted to make alliances with downstate coal companies to get the votes needed for passage of the nuclear bailout bill, which would have resulted in some coal plants getting bailouts as well. This gambit failed when environmental groups withdrew their support for the Exelon legislation. So much for nuclear utility Exelon’s fig-leaf commitment to abating climate change through nuclear power.
Professor Spitz continues saying, “The Illinois measure also strengthened and expanded the state’s renewable portfolio standard, requiring greater use of solar power and wind turbines, and it expanded energy efficiency programs.” 
What Prof. Spitz either ignores or is unaware of is that the “strengthen[ing] and expand[ing of] the state’s renewable portfolio standard” had been held hostage for several years, and its passage was not some energy alleluia moment; but rather a political trade-off predicated on the passage of some form of nuclear bailout first. This was the only way Exelon lobbyists would permit fixing Illinois’ broken renewable portfolio standard. Legislative leadership ordered the competing parties – Exelon, environmental groups, utility ComEd — to negotiate among themselves, and come back with legislative sausage where everybody got something, whether or not deserved or sound energy policy.
In plain English – environmental groups would get no such renewables expansion unless they first agreed to a nuclear bailout. There are legal terms that define such conditions. None are particularly flattering.
Prof. Spitz and others go further in their efforts to rationalize the continued existence of uneconomic nuclear reactors by claiming – quite falsely – that “environmentalists” are backing such plans. Professor Spitz asserts,
“What’s so striking about the Illinois action is that environmentalists joined labor and business leaders in backing it. Among the environmental groups that signed on were the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Environmental Defense Fund. Something like that would have been unimaginable five years ago but it suggests that the environmental community now recognizes that nuclear power must play a role in the battle against climate change.” 
As a self-described scientist, Professor Spitz should understand that, just as correlation does not imply causality, coincidence does not necessarily equal agreement.
Many instances of this blatant distortion of reality have occurred over the past year, most notably involving an attempt by the Wall Street Journal to push that angle back in late June, 2016 . This assertion was quickly rebutted by clarifying statements from Sierra Club director Michael Brune and others, and in a spectacularly devastating article by Miranda Spencer of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting  at the time:
“Sierra Club remains opposed to dangerous nuclear power, and our efforts to make sure these plants shut down continue. Our successful work to stop and retire coal, oil, and gas operations has not precluded this important work, nor will it in the future. It’s imperative that we move toward an economy powered by 100% clean, renewable energy like wind and solar right away.”  — Michael Brune, Sierra Club Executive Director, June 17, 2016
But, let’s see what “the environmentalists” in Illinois said about the nuclear bailout legislation Professor Spitz gushes over. Was it really a recognition that nuclear has a role to play in battling climate change? Illinois Sierra Club director Jack Darin apparently did not think so – and neither did many other environmental groups — at the bill-signing on December 7, 2016:
“These are huge leaps forward for clean energy, but the Future Energy Jobs Bill was also a compromise that includes ratepayer support for two nuclear power plants. To be clear, the Sierra Club remains opposed to nuclear power, and we do not consider nuclear to be clean energy. While we fought for our clean energy priorities, we strongly opposed Exelon’s proposed “Low Carbon Portfolio Standard,” which would have subsidized all of Exelon’s six nuclear reactors, to the exclusion of renewable power. We defeated that proposal, and championed the Illinois Clean Jobs bill as a much better alternative. However, after nearly two years, legislative leaders and the Governor convened all stakeholders with the directive to agree on a single, comprehensive energy proposal. We fought and won to make renewable energy and energy efficiency the cornerstones of the compromise legislation, and of Illinois’ energy future.”  – Jack Darin, Director, Illinois Sierra Club, Dec. 7, 2016
This is hardly the ringing endorsement of nuclear’s roles in combating climate change that Prof. Spitz and others assert.
When you buy into nuclear power, it really is a lot like buying a burrito – you have to take everything they stuff inside it, and can’t cherry pick the contents after the fact. You have to take the radioactive wastes, the Fukushima’s and Chornobyl’s, the perpetual cost overruns, the counterfeit and substandard parts, and above all – the multi-billion dollar bailouts of economically failing reactors, along with the, um, oh yeah, less-carbon intensive electricity. But that’s not how nuclear is sold by its supporters, which tend to glibly gloss over, distort, or ignore these downsides, and more often than not seem to possess the Alfred E. Newman attitude of, “What – me worry?”
These nuclear wealth-transfer schemes (from public ratepayer wallets to private company shareholder portfolios) mortgage our energy future by bailing out the past. Ask any blacksmith or clipper ship sail manufacturer you meet how far that will get you.
If nuclear proponents can so egregiously misinterpret an outcome, whether by ignorance of readily available and necessary facts or by deliberately cherry-picking the data to arrive at a self-aggrandizing outcome, then perhaps the public’s mistrust of nuclear power has not been so misplaced after all. If that’s how they do their science and engineering, we’re all in big trouble.
Entergy Corp. has announced that it will be closing down the Palisades nuclear reactor near Covert, MI, earlier than expected.
NEIS Board President Gail Snyder was interviewed about Palisades by NBC News Chicago in December. Gail’s family has property in the area near Palisades. Listen to her here:
OPPORTUNITIES MISSED, LESSONS NOT LEARNED
The 5th anniversary of the Fukushima nuclear disaster seems an apt time to recall the advice of philosopher and essayist George Santayana, who warned: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Regrettably, the Orwellian truth is that the history of the ongoing Fukushima nuclear disaster is not only being “forgotten;” it is being radically altered by what the late Jeff Patterson, past President of Physicians for Social Responsibility, called “nuclear industry SCUM: Secrecy, Cover-Up, and Minimization,” that nuclear industry advocates and their supporters in governments proliferate. This inevitably results in opportunities being missed, and lessons going unlearned.
In Chicago the week before the March 11th anniversary, the Japanese Consulate announced a series of memorial events relating to the disaster. Virtually all the focus was on the effects of the tsunami. Virtually nothing was mentioned about the ongoing nuclear disaster. This massive and obvious denial of the existence of what is arguably one of the largest industrial disasters in the human history recalls the same kind of reaction the Japanese government took towards the Rape of Nanking and the Korean “comfort girls.” It is hard to learn anything useful that would prevent the recurrence of future disasters when the perpetrators don’t even acknowledge the existence of the ongoing problem.
Recent headlines lend credence to Patterson’s SCUM theory. As recently as Feb 24th it was revealed  that both TEPCo and the Japanese government knew that reactors had melted down as early as March 12, 2011, yet both denied this until May of that year, and for years refused to admit to the extent of the damage. Reports of under-reporting radiation levels , worker exposures and injuries, and extent of hazard have all been trickling out over the past five years.
Japan’s responses to the disaster in light of the revelation of situations far worse than officially acknowledged have been equally Orwellian – if not outright criminal. In the five years since the disaster, the Japanese Government has: repeatedly understated or outright lied about the seriousness of the initial disaster, and the subsequent levels of pollution and contamination relating to it and the clean-up [1,2,3]; enacted “secrecy laws” that would result in the prosecution of journalists reporting negatively on the disaster and the so-called “clean-up” operations; decided that all of Japan should “share the pain” of the disaster, by spreading around to all other prefectures the millions of bags of radioactively contaminated debris  collected in the Fukushima area, as well as incinerating this waste in those other prefectures; deemed foods grown in the Fukushima area safe for consumption and export; minimized the emergence of a spike in thyroid-related conditions, as well as the 100+ surgeries that have taken place relating to thyroid disease ; refused clean-up help from the 700+ retired nuclear personnel of the Skilled Veterans Corps for Fukushima, who not only had professional expertise to offer, but who because of age were attempting to reduce exposure to younger workers of reproduction ages.
The government has totally ignored the demonstrations of hundreds of thousands of Japanese people protesting the restart of Japan’s reactors (echoing sentiments of 2/3 of the population), and calling for their replacement with renewable energy. Currently, it is in effect forcing evacuees to return to potentially contaminated areas or else lose their victim compensation. And certainly not the least – it has failed to prosecute anyone from TEPCo or the government for their contributing roles in the ongoing disaster.
It has taken five years for anyone to finally be indicted  for their actions/inactions relating to the disaster. While the Japanese government itself could not find any wrongdoing serious enough to indict anyone for the perpetual radioactive contamination of the Pacific Ocean and large swathes of eastern Japan, and the displacement of 160,000 people and 3,200 evacuation-related deaths, a rarely used civilian judicial panel finally did on February 29, 2016 – five years after the fact, and after repeated government inaction. Three former TEPCo officials were recently (and some news accounts point out – finally) indicted on charges of professional negligence resulting in injury and death. Perhaps the government reasoned that if Nanking was not so bad, Fukushima must simply be a misdemeanor.
TEPCo too has engaged in its own levels of obfuscation and questionable behaviors relating to the clean-up. They have lied on numerous occasions to the Japanese government, as well as the international community [2,3,4,5]; employed clean-up sub-contractors and personnel reportedly with ties to the Yakuza; provided workers little training and not much in the way of personal protection from irradiation and contamination; demonstrated no ability to stanch the flow of radioactively contaminated water from the reactors and into the Pacific Ocean, finally publicly admitting that they felt they would have to release contaminated water directly at some point. It has also reneged on mediated victim compensation payment agreements .
Although further removed in time and buried in the collective consciousness of a society that seems to demonstrate the recall capacity of a fruit fly, the Chornobyl disaster of 30 years ago continues to offer its own unique examples of “SCUM”. While numerous health organizations, NGOs and individual governments
report deaths and health effects into the hundreds of thousands, the “official story” number of 56 radiation-related deaths is the one most conveniently used in news stories and public statements. The explosion of thyroid-related conditions and surgeries is minimized by the terse clinical observation that this is somehow acceptable, since it is “relatively easy” to provide treatment for thyroid disorders. The stories of the 800,000 liquidators receive little attention these days, and their diseases and suffering are relegated to “stress” and “nuclear phobia” – as if these would have existed absent the nuclear disaster.
High-priced, slick documentaries abound, claiming the “recovery” of wildlife in the Contaminated Zone. These often “forget” to mention that much of this alleged recovery can be attributed to the near-total absence of the apex predator – mankind. They further fail to mention the numerous studies showing the opposite is actually true when one examines in greater depth the overall health and reproductive capabilities of many of the remaining wildlife inhabitants of The Zone that aren’t good photogenic subjects for heartwarming documentaries – the insects, bacteria, fungi, plant species, etc., which make up the base of the web of life in the region.
Ignoring the rhinoceros in the living room – the current de facto civil war raging in Ukraine – the Kyiv-based Ukrainian government continues to insist that it will build an additional 13 nuclear reactors  on top of the 15 currently in operation in a nation on the cusp of war and self-annihilation — some of which were under threat during the hotter hostilities. Apparently, the phrase, ”loss-of-offsite-power” accident has not yet been translated into Ukrainian.
THE U.S. (LACK OF) RESPONSE POST FUKUSHIMA/CHORNOBYL
One should not get the erroneous impression that the “SCUM” phenomenon applies solely to Japan and Ukraine. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the nuclear industry here have contributed heavily to the list of lessons-not-learned and missed opportunities to improve safety. Consider:
- Going against the recommendations of its hand-picked expert analysis team making post-Fukushima “lessons-learned” recommendations, the NRC denied an emergency interveners 2.206 petition which called for safety improvements in the 24 U.S. reactors of the same design that melted down and blew up at Fukushima – four of which are in Illinois. These improvements would have added filtered vents (which were added to European and Japanese reactors after the Fukushima meltdowns) to keep radioactive materials inside the plant during meltdowns; and improvements to the emergency cooling systems for the “spent fuel pools” containing the reactor’s spent fuel. 
- The NRC also delayed for years the implementation of several other “lessons learned” recommended by NRC staff.
- After the Chornobyl disaster in 1986, regulators insisted that there were no lessons to be learned here in the U.S. because the U.S. utilities did not operate any reactors of the design type of Chornobyl, which NRC deemed inferior to U.S. designs. After the Fukushima disaster, in which three U.S.-design GE boiling water reactors widely used in the U.S. melted down and exploded, the NRC insisted that lessons were not applicable to the U.S. because the Japanese had modified these designs and operated them differently than is done in the U.S.
- In December 2012 NRC whistle-blowers revealed that the NRC had been covering up the severity of accident potential from floods at U.S. reactors downstream of dams.
- In August 2015 the NRC rejected another recommendation emanating from the high-level task force it convened after the March 2011 Fukushima disaster which called for making Severe Accident Management Guidelines for reactor emergency response planning for Fukushima-level emergencies mandatory at nuclear reactors, stating the staff recommendation did not meet a strict cost-benefit standard. 
- In September 2015 the NRC abruptly cancelled a cancer study  it had commissioned with the National Academy of Sciences to definitively determine the health impacts of living near nuclear reactors. The Academy had already done considerable work in this direction when NRC terminated the study, claiming it would not be “cost effective” to obtain this definitive answer.
- Most recently seven NRC nuclear engineers felt compelled to file an emergency 2.206 safety-related petition with their superiors at NRC after uncovering a safety flaw found in 98 of 99 U.S. reactors which has existed since the reactors were built. Their concerns and recommended actions were denied two times previously by NRC officials higher in the chain of command. This forced the NRC engineers to file as “citizen petitioners” rather than as NRC employees to bypass the NRC regulatory obstruction. The condition was first identified at Exelon’s Byron Illinois nuclear station in 2012. In spite of the fact that the safety condition persists, and is of a concern level that NRC regulations require that the reactors be fixed or be shut down, NRC has taken no action to implement the fixes four years after being reported. 
Historically, repeated instances like these show that NRC has demonstrated a near anaphalactic-allergic response to assertive regulation of the U.S. nuclear industry – so much so that critics insist that NRC must stand for “not really concerned.” This abdication of regulatory responsibility comes to the detriment of protecting the U.S. public and the environment.
A former senior aide to the Commission bluntly observed  in 2012, that the “[C]ommission and that agency [NRC] were complete and total captives of the nuclear industry. One and the same.”
The one and only “lesson to be learned” from the nuclear disasters at Fukushima and Chornobyl is that – this is what you get when the regulators stop regulating. Perhaps these anniversaries suggest – or warn — it is time to do major house cleaning at the NRC, and establish a truly independent regulator that will make public health and safety its prime concern – before we’re forced to start observing more such anniversaries here in the U.S.
NEIS hosted the first training session of the newly formed Radiation Monitoring Project (RMP) in Chicago on October 30th. Nuclear researcher Lucas Hixson of Enformable Environmental Services of Michigan conducted an intensive training for 10 eager trainees on the topics of radiation and the field use of monitors.
The Chicago event was the first of what will be a series of trainings around the country sponsored by the RMP. The next trainings are tentatively slated to be held in Chicago sometime in January; and in Albuquerque in March, 2016.
Hixson led participants through an intense classroom training on radiation basics lasting nearly five hours. This was followed for the next three hours by hands-on training using the monitors provided by the Project to take readings on selected radioactive samples Hixson provided. An edited video of the training will soon be available on the RMP webpage hosted on the website of Diné No Nukes of Albuquerque, NM.
The purpose of the RMP is to professionally train a cadre of frontline community members and activists who either live in or near nuclear/radiation-related facilities; or who are affected by some radiation contamination in the use of industry-grade radiation monitors. The Project intends to compile and archive data; and act as a validity check to industry and government information concerning contamination and spills of radioactive materials. Having the participants professionally trained and equipped with industry-standard monitors enhances the validity of their findings.
The Project is a joint venture of Diné No Nukes of Albuquerque, NM; Sloths against Nuclear State of Brooklyn, NY; and NEIS of Chicago Illinois. These groups raised close to $17,000 this year to purchase 15 hand-held devices. Fundraising continues (see below) and will go to cover the costs of future trainings, and purchase additional radiation monitors.
The RMP intends to offer the use of the monitors free of charge to individuals and groups living in or near communities threatened by some form of radiation contamination. Candidates will have to submit a formal application (see below) to be considered for receiving a monitor; and will have to agree to participate in a formal training conducted by RMP. Accepted applicants will also be urged to submit their data to RMP for archiving.
While other radiation monitoring projects have been in operation for years, it seems that the RMP model is the first of its kind in the U.S. While the fundamental purpose of the Project is to protect people and communities from radiation hazards, its overarching goal is to train a constantly growing cadre of professionally trained people whose information and data cannot be disputed or dismissed as irrelevant.
After Fukushima it became abundantly clear that citizens cannot count on the information coming from government agencies and the nuclear industry as being valid and unbiased, if not outright falsified. Nor can they count on the government to do monitoring when and where it counts. The RMP intends to create a corps of citizen experts whose data and training will serve as a reality check on the usual “the public was never in any danger” pronouncements of groups like the NRC and EPA.
Individuals and organizations interested in being considered for participation in the RMP can submit an application form by e-mail.
The Project continues to accept donations.
Donors willing to support the RMP can send donations in one of several ways:
- Our GoFundMe site is still active:
Send the link along on Twitter and Facebook, with a little blurb about your experience at the Training. Up to 7% of your donation will go to GoFundMe fees. So….
Donors wishing to make TAX DEDUCTIBLE contributions can do so through the NEIS website at:
and selecting the Radiation Monitoring Project from the “special purpose” field.
NEIS will also accept checks by mail made out to NEIS, and marked “RadMonitoring Project” in the memo field.
The full title of the RMP is, “The Radiation Monitoring Project: Protecting Our Communities. Watching the Watchers.” You are on notice NRC; we WILL be watching from now on.
The accident continues
CHICAGO—The nuclear disaster at Fukushima enters its fourth year today, and the more things change, the more they remain the same, a local nuclear watchdog organization observes.
“We’re entering year four of a global disaster which will NEIS demonstrators outside the Japanese Consulate in Chicago on 4th anniversary of Fukushima disaster continue to go on for at least three more decades, and cost Japan hundreds of billions of dollars,” notes Gail Snyder, Board President of Nuclear Energy Information Service (NEIS), a Chicago-based safe-energy/nuclear watchdog organization.
While costly, incremental progress is being made at Fukushima, the clean-up project remains riddled with many of the flaws and problems noted early on, and feared by both the Japanese public and international observers alike. These include:
- The ongoing dumping of radioactively contaminated water into the Pacific Ocean, and consequent contamination of fish and plant life;
- Control of the clean-up operations by Japanese mafia (yakuza) organizations, leading to poor training and contamination of workers, who are also underpaid and have few benefits or health options;
- The capitulation of government to the wishes of the Japanese nuclear industry, the legendary “Nuclear Village” of industry insiders.
- The complex, multi-layered system of awarding sub-contractor contracts to do the clean-up, which is rife with corruption;
- The weakening of radiation exposure standards for both workers and the general public; and ignoring of other contaminated prefectures besides Fukushima;
- The deliberate spreading of radioactive waste disposal and contamination across all of Japan as a matter of formal government policy;
- Continued cover-ups on the part of TEPCO with no legal consequences for their actions. Recently Japan Times revealed that TEPCO was knowingly discharging radioactive water containing strontium and cesium into the Pacific Ocean for the past 10 months, but did not notify anyone until caught.
“It is not acceptable that the government of Japan permits continued contamination of the
Pacific Ocean without consequence,” Snyder asserts. “We are here today to inform Prime Minister Abe that these and other unacceptable actions will no longer be tolerated by the World Community. If Japan does not cease its contamination of the planet in the coming year, does not engage in responsible clean-up activities, does not engage in responsible radiation monitoring, then We, the World Community will be forced to bring formal charges against them in an appropriate world court venue,” Snyder warns.
“We will be back here next year, and every year after that. We will see progress from the Japanese government on the cleanup, of they will see consequence,” Snyder concludes.
Illinois has four reactors of the same type but older than the reactors that melted down and exploded at Fukushima in 2011. Two of these — Quad Cities 1 & 2 — are on the list for either corporate welfare bailout or closure via the recently introduced Exelon legislation.
A demonstration will take place outside the Japanese Consul’s office in Chicago from 11 to 1 today.
A number of us in Chicago were rolling our eyes and yelling at our radios listening to former EPA Administrator Carol Browner, now spokesperson for the Exelon sponsored “Nuclear Matters” interviewedyesterday on our local public radio station, WBEZ, on Monday January 26th.
Dave Kraft, Director of Nuclear Energy Information Service was able to counter her points in an interview the following day on the same radio station.
Carol Browner, Nuclear Matters Interview:
Dave Kraft, Nuclear Energy Information Service Interview:
CHICAGO– A more serious incident occurred at the Honeywell Uranium conversion facility in Metropolis, Illinois than was originally reported by the plant operators to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The NRC Event Report states,
“DISCOVERY OF AFTER-THE-FACT EMERGENCY CONDITION – ALERT DECLARATION NOT MADE DURING EVENT INVOLVING URANIUM HEXAFLUORIDE LEAK After review of additional observations and other evidence not directly involved with the response, Honeywell has determined that the event should have been upgraded at 1942 [CDT] on 10/26/14, to an ‘Alert’ classification per our classification criteria.”
“Emergency response and public awareness to a hazardous release from Honeywell depends on the reliable, honest and timely reporting by Honeywell. No government agencies can detect in real time an ongoing release of radioactive Uranium Hexafluoride (UF6) or toxic Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) at the facility”, stated Gail Snyder, Board President of Nuclear Energy Information Service.
In a phone conversation with Roger Hanah of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) he conveyed that Honeywell’s Emergency Response Plan includes stationing a person in position to view and observe the incident and that the person was not originally stationed in a location that allowed him/her to see the release of Uranium Hexafluoride (UF6) from the building. An updated NRC Event Report states “the NRC inspection found that Honeywell did not recognize that the HF (Hydrogen Fluoride) released from the FMB (Facilities Management Building) warranted an emergency classification of ALERT. “ As a result Honeywell did not notify the Nuclear Regulatory Commission at that time. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency which issues the site permit and regulates the process where the leak occurred was not notified of the incident until a few days after it happened.
Currently the production of Uranium Hexafluoride (UF6) is shutdown at the facility while an internal investigation and corrective actions are evaluated and discussed with the NRC. In a confirmatory action letter resulting from an NRC emergency inspection, Honeywell is required to “review and revise [their] emergency preparedness procedures, if necessary, and conduct appropriate training to provide assurance that events can be classified correctly, and appropriate emergency response actions can be implemented.” From this wording it does not indicate if Honeywell’s failure to accurately understand and convey the seriousness of the incident was a failure of their Emergency Response Plan or insufficiently trained or inexperienced workers.
On-strike union workers have claimed that replacement workers are not well trained and do not have the experience to operate the facility as safely as union workers would.
“The NRC has previously approved the Emergency Response Plan and allowed the facility to operate with replacement workers. So will the NRC undergo its own internal investigation to determine how the NRC allowed either plans, less qualified workers or some combination of those to operate the facility in a way that would allow for a plume of Uranium Hexafluoride or Hydrogen Fluoride to be released, not noticed, not accurately categorized and delayed in reporting?” asks Gail Snyder.
The Honeywell facility does not have a ten-mile Emergency Planning Zone around it like nuclear energy facilities do which require some preparedness information be provided to the public on what to do in the event of an emergency. Joe Miller from Massac County’s Emergency Management department said, “the sirens that are activated offsite during an emergency may not always be heard by people who are inside a residence or building,” where other sounds from televisions, radios etc…may not allow them to hear the sirens. Emergency Management Director for the City of Metropolis, Keith Davis, who is also the director for the 911 service of the county, said that during an emergency Honeywell determines the severity and classification of an event as well as the action recommendations which are then directed to dispatch. Prompt public notification of an emergency can come in the form of sirens and reverse 911 calls or through the emergency alert system. The original reporting from Honeywell or its revised status of an “alert” would not have initiated public notifications. If the status was raised to a “Site Area Emergency” that would indicate the possible offsite release of Uranium Hexafluoride (UF6) and/or Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) which would initiate public notifications.
On October 26, 2014 Honeywell reported a leak of Uranium Hexafluoride (UF6) claiming the leak was contained within the building, later admitting that the leak was not contained in the building and was released into the environment while still claiming it did not go offsite of the facility. A union worker on strike outside the facility filmed the plume coming out of the top of the building and drifting across the property before water suppression systems were activated. Illinois Emergency Management Agency (IEMA) states that their department’s radiation monitoring equipment stationed outside the facility’s fence boundary did not monitor anything unusual. The other dangerously toxic chemical, Hydrogen Fluoride Gas (HF), which could be a significant risk to the neighboring community is not monitored by IEMA.
The first NRC “updated” Preliminary report, dated October 31st, maintains the “Not Applicable” classification rather than the “Alert” classification. It also states “initial indications are that no detectable offsite release of material (UF6 or HF) was present,” and that “monitoring fence HF detectors from the control room indicated no detectable HF at the fence.” The Honeywell facility has Hydrogen Fluoride detectors on site but according to an article posted by the United Steel Workers, who are in a labor dispute with Honeywell and have been locked out of the facility for over three months, HF monitors are not stationed on the West side of the property’s fence line, the direction the plume was going. A Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff member confirmed that it was likely that HF monitors were not stationed along the fence line in areas where people did not live. The west side of the Honeywell facility is bordered by a forested area. A coal facility is just beyond the forested area. The only agency that might monitor for Hydrogen Fluoride is the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA). Attempts to contact the IEPA to confirm that they do not monitor for Hydrogen Fluoride at the facility could not be obtained by the time of this press release.
The most recent NRC “updated” Preliminary report, dated November 6th, states that “The NRC has concluded no detectable radioactive material was released,” and that “Honeywell has determined that if any HF, which is not radioactive but is chemically hazardous, travelled beyond their property it would have been of such a low concentration as to pose no public safety hazard.” From October 31st to November 6th Honeywell changed its statement from “initial indications…no detectable offsite release” to “if any HF travelled beyond property.” Currently there is no confirmation that HF absolutely did not leave the site because there are not monitors around the entire site, and we have found no other governmental agency that monitors HF at the site. Other than direct monitoring of HF, determination of whether HF went beyond the property is done through computer modeling. The Honeywell Company and the NRC have both run modeling programs to determine the quantity of material released. The results of the modeling may be available in the report issued by the NRC from the emergency inspection of the facility which will be finalized and available in a few weeks.
The NRC’s Event reporting form has five “License Emergency Classifications.” Uranium Processing facilities have two allowed classifications of emergencies, “Alert” and “Site Area Emergency,” according to Roger Hanah of the NRC. The original Preliminary Event report form had the “Not Applicable” box selected. Honeywell originally referred to the emergency as a “plant emergency” which does not alert the heads of emergency response agencies to the potential for offsite releases or that they he should be prepared to potentially have to call staff in if Honeywell requires outside assistance. An “Alert” level would have raised the awareness and preparedness of the various emergency response agencies. No outside response was requested.
Honeywell submitted an additional event report on or around November 3rd, after the original incident and during the shutdown of the production of Uranium Hexafluoride Honeywell that reported the “UNPLANNED MEDICAL TREATMENT OF A CONTAMINATED INDIVIDUAL.” The employee slipped and fell in a gravel area: “A whole body radiological survey of the employee and plant clothing was performed,” contamination was present with the most occurring on the upper back of the employee’s plant issued coveralls. Upon the completion of first aid activities, the employee routinely exit monitored from the facility and reported to an off-site medical facility for further evaluation. No additional contamination found on the employee.” It could not be determined from the report or questions to the NRC if the employee was injured or contaminated in relation to repair or clean-up work from the event on October 26th. The inspection report related to the Oct. 26th event or other regular inspection reports in the future may convey more information about the contaminated employee.
“The staggering number of mistakes, inaccuracies, changed stories, and inadequate responses on the part of both Honeywell and the NRC beg for an independent investigation into Honeywell’s ability to run so sensitive a facility, and NRC’s ability to adequately regulate it,” asserts Dave Kraft, Director of NEIS. “NRC’s existing regulatory scheme does not seem capable of protecting the public health and safety in a timely and responsible manner. Illinois’ Congressional Delegation needs to look into this matter,” Kraft states.
3411 W Diversey Avenue, #13
Chicago, IL 60647
Make your online shopping count. Designate NEIS as your selected charity. THEY donate to NEIS everytime YOU shop.
There are no upcoming events at this time.
4 days ago
Watch NEIS’ Night With the Experts!
Our most recent guest expert was Diné activist :
Director, Diné No Nukes
Nuclear Issues Study Group, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Leona has long-standing expertise and firsthand experience with uranium mining issues on Indigenous lands worldwide; has presented on Indigenous rights issues at COP-24; and is the co-founder of the Radiation Monitoring Project, providing radiation monitors and professional training on their use to frontline contaminated communities. She is currently involved in a national organizing effort to prevent the construction “centralized interim storage” dumps for high-level radioactive wastes in southeast New Mexico and West Texas. Indigenous lands and impoverished tribes are routinely targeted by the U.S. Dept. of Energy and the nuclear industry to serve as dump communities for this deadly waste. The Diné Reservation in New Mexico is also the site of the largest human-made spill of radioactive material in the history of North America, the Church Rock mill tailings spill into the Puerco River, July 16, 1979.
How “Night with the Experts” Works:
With most webinars, especially online, speakers talk for the majority of the time, often leaving little time for detailed questions or genuine discussion. With NWTE, we reverse that format. The guest expert(s) will be given about 10 minutes to introduce their information on the topic. Then, the remainder of the time will be given to the watching/listening participants to ask questions and engage in moderated discussion. Participants will indicate in the ZOOM “Chat Box” their wish to speak or ask a question, and will be acknowledged in the order received.
NEIS will conduct the series at 7 p.m. on the last Thursday of each month, so mark your calendar. Next Up: “Nuclear Power in a COVID World,” our experts TBD; Thursday, September 24th, 7 p.m. Central TZ. Hope to see you at both of these events! ... See MoreSee Less