A new book says that a nuclear explosion may have occurred at Fukushima Unit 3 after ‘supercritical condition’ because an  increase in plutonium and uranium was recorded by U.S. at several EPA stations after the Fukushima disaster. enenews.com

A censored Japanese government scientist reveals much more radioactive material is leaking into Pacific from Fukushima than claimed by TEPCO. enenews.com

The pouring of first concrete today for another Russian-supplied reactor at the Tianwan site in China’s Jiangsu province brings the total number of power reactors currently under construction in the country to 30. world-nuclear-news.org

Federal officials outlined the process of decommissioning the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station’s units 2 and 3 at a public meeting in Carlsbad Thursday, while local activists who had argued for the shutdown of the nuclear plant advocated for an expedited removal of spent nuclear fuel from the facility.  sanclementetimes.com

Ambient office = .091 microsieverts per hour

Ambient outside = .095 microsieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = .116 microsieverts per hour

Red onion from Top Foods =  .079 microsieverts per hour

Tap water = .126 microsieverts per hour

Filtered water = .099 microsieverts per hour

              The Department of Health (DOH) for the State of Washington is responsible for protecting the public from environmental threats such as radioactive materials. They have a major presence at Hanford, monitoring the cleanup of the site and the operating Columbia Generation Station reactor that supplies about ten percent of the electricity to Washington residents and industries. They are also monitoring the Washington Pacific coast for radioactive contamination from the Fukushima disaster.

             There was a spike in certain radioactive isotopes following the Fukushima disaster from fallout in the atmosphere. Once that spike subsided, the next concern was the debris that was crossing the Pacific from the tsunami that was triggered by the quake that hit Fukushima. DOH personnel have been walking the Washington coastal beaches investigating trash thrown up by the ocean. So far, the debris has no shown any radioactive contamination which makes sense because things swept out to sea by the tsunami would not have had time to be exposed to the radiation from the disaster. The major environment concern was that there were invasive foreign life forms attached to some of the debris.

             DOH has been testing the ocean at several points off the Washington Coast annually since the Fukushima disaster for any evidence radioactive contamination carried by ocean currents but has not seem any. They have also been collecting clams and mussels from a number of beaches on the Washington coast several times a year since the Fukushima disaster and analyzing them for radioactive contamination. Radioactive materials can be drawn out of seawater and concentrated by aquatic plants and animals by a process known as bioaccumulation.  So far, there has been no sign of radioactive contamination from Fukushima in the specimens collected. However, tuna caught off the California Pacific coast within six months of the Fukushima disaster did show radioactive contamination. The adolescent tuna from the Japanese archipelago migrate across the Pacific to the U.S. West coast as they mature.

            Sophisticated oceanographic models developed for the currents in the Pacific Ocean suggest that radioactive isotopes spilling into the ocean from the ongoing problems at Fukushima will not reach the Washington Pacific coast until sometime in 2014. The models indicate that the dilution of the Fukushima ocean contamination may be sufficient that we will see very little or no rise in radiation in seawater off the Washington coast even after the water from Fukushima crosses the Pacific and arrives on our coast. The DOH will continue to monitor the seawater and aquatic organisms for any sign of such pollution.

             The situation at Fukushima is still in a state of flux. There are three melted reactor cores under the Fukushima power plant which are being cooled with huge amounts of water. The groundwater is steadily rising and the tanks that have been hastily built to contain waste water are full. The Japanese are considering freezing the soil between the power plant and the Pacific Ocean in an attempt to prevent more contaminated water from entering the ocean. Hopefully, their efforts will succeed and the radioactive contamination of the Pacific Ocean will stop.

TEPCO released the first images of the new cranes inside of the Unit 4 defueling building. fukuleaks.org

New unpublished data reveals a slight rise in birth defects in post-nuclear-meltdown Japan. thedailybeast.com

The Macedonia government hasn’t reached a decision to launch a nuclear power program. balkans.com

The U.S. Department of Energy offered hundreds of new nuclear-site cleanup jobs to southern Ohio workers yesterday, along with a second chance for USEC to win a $2 billion federal loan guarantee for a proposed uranium-enrichment plant in Piketon, Ohio. dispatch.com

Ambient office = .098 microsieverts per hour

Ambient outside = .101 microsieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = .097 microsieverts per hour

Vine ripened tomato from Costco =  .088 microsieverts per hour

Tap water = .082 microsieverts per hour

Filtered water = .073 microsieverts per hour

           In the event of a major nuclear accident at a nuclear power plant in the United States, the 1957 Price-Anderson Act limits the liability of the owners of the power plant where the accident occurred. Owners of nuclear power plants pay in to a Federal fund that is currently around twelve billion dollars. After an accident, damages will be paid to the public out of the fund for such things as injury, lost wages, hotel rooms required by evacuation, property replacement, etc.

           The question of what Federal agencies would respond and who would pay for cleaning up the environmental damage left by a major nuclear accident is not clear. In 2009, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission told the Homeland Security Department and the Environmental Protection Agency that money collected under the Price-Anderson Act would probably not be available for environmental remediation in the area around a nuclear power plant where an accident happened. A year later, a Freedom of Information act was filed with the EPA and the NRC statement became public knowledge.

           Last year, a NRC commissioner said that “[t]here is no regulatory framework for environmental restoration following a major radiological release.” in a presentation to the Health Physics Society. She also raised the question of what should be considered as “clean.” Some have called for the use of the Superfund standard for cleaning up radioactive contamination. That standard says that radiation must be reduced to the point where there will be less than one new case of cancer per ten thousand people using the area. She said that the NRC did not support the Superfund standard. Recent statements by the EPA suggest that they think that the Superfund standard may be too strict and not practical in the case of a major nuclear incident. If only radioactive materials were released into the environment, then the EPA Superfund law which enables the EPA to sue polluting companies would not apply.

         On September 13, 2013, the New York Attorney General sent a letter to the NRC requesting more information on who would be responsible for cleaning up the environmental destruction caused by a nuclear accident at one of the three Indian Point Energy Center reactors. The AC requested that the question be resolved definitively before the Indian Point nuclear power plant was relicensed. The AG said that it is “not clear that NRC has the desire, capability, or financial resources to respond to a severe accident at Indian Point and ensure the thorough decontamination of the New York metropolitan area including, but not limited to, its water sources — and drinking water sources — in the wake of such an accident.” The AG demanded that the NRC identify exactly which Federal agencies would respond to clean up an accident at the Indian Point plant and also make an explicit statement about whether or not the Price-Anderson funds could be tapped for environmental in the event of a nuclear accident. In the letter, it was pointed out that the area around the Indian Point plant is heavily populated, contains critical infrastructure and resources, and contains some of the most expensive real estate in the country. Based on these facts, it was predicted that the cost of clean up around the Indian Point Energy Center might be more expensive that a clean up around any other nuclear reactor in the country. In any case, we do need a straight answer about who cleans up and who pays for an environmental disaster caused by a nuclear accident.

Indian Point Energy Center:

Fukushima Unit 4 building has shown signs of collapsing due to the rising groundwater under the site. enenews.com

TEPCO says that tank construction can’t catch up with increasing contaminated water. fukushima-diary.com

On Tuesday, the Department of Energy floated a series of ideas to speed the removal of tank waste from the Hanford site before completion of treatment equipment stalled by technical problems. nuclearstreet.com

Water case brings out supporters and foes of proposed Utah nuclear plant. nuclearstreet.com

Ambient office = .042 microsieverts per hour

Ambient outside = .056 microsieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = .071 microsieverts per hour

Romaine lettuce from Costco =  .043 microsieverts per hour

Tap water = .082 microsieverts per hour

Filtered water = .073 microsieverts per hour

           In the event of a major nuclear accident at a nuclear power plant in the United States, the 1957 Price-Anderson Act limits the liability of the owners of the power plant where the accident occurred. Owners of nuclear power plants pay in to a Federal fund that is currently around twelve billion dollars. After an accident, damages will be paid to the public out of the fund for such things as injury, lost wages, hotel rooms required by evacuation, property replacement, etc.

           The question of what Federal agencies would respond and who would pay for cleaning up the environmental damage left by a major nuclear accident is not clear. In 2009, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission told the Homeland Security Department and the Environmental Protection Agency that money collected under the Price-Anderson Act would probably not be available for environmental remediation in the area around a nuclear power plant where an accident happened. A year later, a Freedom of Information act was filed with the EPA and the NRC statement became public knowledge.  

         Last year, a NRC commissioner said that “[t]here is no regulatory framework for environmental restoration following a major radiological release.” in a presentation to the Health Physics Society. She also raised the question of what should be considered as “clean.” Some have called for the use of the Superfund standard for cleaning up radioactive contamination. That standard says that radiation must be reduced to the point where there will be less than one new case of cancer per ten thousand people using the area. She said that the NRC did not support the Superfund standard. Recent statements by the EPA suggest that they think that the Superfund standard may be too strict and not practical in the case of a major nuclear incident. If only radioactive materials were released into the environment, then the EPA Superfund law which enables the EPA to sue polluting companies would not apply.

         On September 13, 2013, the New York Attorney General sent a letter to the NRC requesting more information on who would be responsible for cleaning up the environmental destruction caused by a nuclear accident at one of the three Indian Point Energy Center reactors. The AC requested that the question be resolved definitively before the Indian Point nuclear power plant was relicensed. The AG said that it is “not clear that NRC has the desire, capability, or financial resources to respond to a severe accident at Indian Point and ensure the thorough decontamination of the New York metropolitan area including, but not limited to, its water sources — and drinking water sources — in the wake of such an accident.” The AG demanded that the NRC identify exactly which Federal agencies would respond to clean up an accident at the Indian Point plant and also make an explicit statement about whether or not the Price-Anderson funds could be tapped for environmental in the event of a nuclear accident. In the letter, it was pointed out that the area around the Indian Point plant is heavily populated, contains critical infrastructure and resources, and contains some of the most expensive real estate in the country. Based on these facts, it was predicted that the cost of clean up around the Indian Point Energy Center might be more expensive that a clean up around any other nuclear reactor in the country. In any case, we do need a straight answer about who cleans up and who pays for an environmental disaster caused by a nuclear accident.

Indian Point Energy Center:

Cesium-134 and cesium-137 radioactive isotopes are still being detected in drinking water across Japan. fukuleaks.com

Tokyo Professor says that Japan is on verge of political, social, economic, and moral collapse after Fukushima disaster. enenews.com

Faulting software errors by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, federal regulators have determined the steam generator design flaws that ultimately shuttered the San Onofre nuclear plant likely amounted to violations of its license. nuclearstreet.com

Workers safely evacuated a building at the Idaho National Laboratory Friday during a fire at the Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project. nuclearstreet.com