Entries from August 26, 2007 - September 1, 2007
Nuke Waste? Here?
Ain't No Nuke waste around here, No sir, none at all
Gregor Gable
Post a Comment
Email
PrintNo radioactive threat after fire at submarine in Severodvinsk
No radioactive threat after fire at submarine in Severodvins |  | |
| ARKHANGELSK, August 30 (Itar-Tass) -- A fire that broke out on a submarine that is being scrapped at the Severodvinsk shipyard poses no radiation threat, spokeswoman for the Zvezdochka shipyard Tatyana Shcherbinina told Tass Thursday. At present, the work on the submarine of the "Akula"class that has a series number 713 is in the final stage. The submarine hull has been cut to pieces, reactor blocks have already been removed, and therefore, the fire poses no radiation threat, the spokeswoman said. "No one has been hurt in the fire that continued barely for a few minutes, and no material damage has been caused," the spokeswoman said. Regrettably, given the existing technologies a hull is cut by means of gas and therefore, such incidents cannot be ruled out altogether. Besides, it is impossible to fully clean the hull constructions of inflammable insulation materials stuck in places that cannot be reached," the spokeswoman said. The regional Emergencies Situations Center said the fire broke out at 4. 36 a.m. Moscow time Thursday and was put out six minutes after. The fire spread to around 15 square meters, The heavy nuclear powered submarine "Akula" (Typhoon) with the series number 713 has been scrapped at the Zvezdochka shipyard on funds provided by the United States in the framework of the Russo- US joint lessening of the threat program. After the submarine is scrapped a block with reactor compartments left intact will be shipped to a dumping site on the Kola peninsula. |
Locals oppose new waste going to Hanford
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/environment/archives/120805.asp
Oh Hanford, why is your every silver lining tinged with plutonium-239? In mid-August we got the news that work was ready to resume full-steam on a gazillion-dollar facility to turn radioactive waste into a glasslike material for safe storage.
From the AP's Shannon Dininny on Aug. 14:
As you might recall, we at the P-I ran stories that included predictions that the Department of Energy -- the agency overseeing the polluted site in south-central Washington -- was pursuing a "ready, shoot, aim" cleanup approach that would cause them to stumble and fall.The news comes nearly two years after federal officials slowed, then halted, construction on parts of the $12.2 billion plant amid escalating costs, seismic concerns and technical problems.
But even when they're picking themselves up again, resuming construction, trouble strikes.
On Sunday, we ran this AP story, stating: "Seven workers at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation have reported symptoms they believe resulted from exposure to hazardous chemical and radioactive waste that spilled from a tank in July. Symptoms included upper respiratory problems, upset stomachs, headaches, dizziness, eye irritation and blurred vision."
The contractor in charge of these men is on the record raising doubts that their claims are legit.
And then there's the persistent effort to bring still more trash to Hanford. From Annette Cary today in the Tri-City Herald:
DOE is looking at Hanford as one option for disposing of an estimated 7,280 cubic yards of radioactive waste generated through 2062.
It's a relatively small volume of waste compared with the vast amount of waste already planned to be disposed of at Hanford. But the amount of radiation it contains is significant.
It has an estimated 130 million curies of radioactivity. That compares to the 190 million curies of radioactivity in the millions of gallons of waste held in underground tanks from the past production of plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons program, much of which DOE plans to dispose of (at) Hanford.
She reported from a public meeting near Portland where residents, state officials and U.S. senators voiced their opposition to the plan, ending with this comment: "Keith Harding of Hood River had another suggestion for where to store the waste -- a certain ranch in Texas, he said, alluding to President Bush's home."
Honestly... There's No Nuclear Waste Around Here...
http://www.ahajokes.com/cartoon/kengo.jpg
Going Nuclear: Groundwater contamination proves one thing
| Home » Views » The Wandering Eye |   |
Nuclear contamination
Going Nuclear: Groundwater contamination proves one thing
BY D. A. SMITH
http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A32313
In recent years, I've noticed a lot of noise being made by the energy industry about workplace safety and the environmental anxieties of Americans electorate. They've been talking nonstop about nuclear power and building new reactors for commercial use — something that hasn't happened in the almost 30 years since Three Mile Island woke America up to the devilish details of nuclear energy production.
I've read the news articles and listened to the talking heads on this topic, and I wonder if anybody actually recalls Newton's Third Law of Motion about reciprocal action.
It turns out somebody does. The State recently acquired through the Freedom of Information Act previously sealed records concerning Chem-Nuclear's operation of the state-owned landfill in Barnwell County that opened in 1971.
The records in question show that groundwater below the nuclear waste dump has levels of radioactive tritium that exceed Environmental Protection Agency standards and compete with the contamination by the neighboring Savannah River Site A-bomb factory.
For those who cut class that day, tritium is a radioactive form of hydrogen that occurs naturally in the Earth's upper atmosphere. It is also a by-product in nuclear energy and weapons production and not thought to be as dangerous as plutonium.
However, prolonged exposure to tritium, primarily through contaminated drinking water, is known to cause birth defects and thought to be a cause of some forms of cancer.
Tritium is one of the speediest of radioactive materials and other slower types can follow it into groundwater if landfills are leaching radioactive contaminants.
The Barnwell dump contains 28 million cubic feet of mostly low-level nuclear waste that is not as toxic as atomic byproducts, but old reactor parts are also in that stew.
These old parts are irradiated with plutonium and uranium and could take thousands of years to lose their radioactivity.
According to The State, a 2006 map of monitoring wells showed that one-third had tritium levels exceeding EPA standards of safety. Previous reports also showed detectable levels of carbon-14, uranium-238, polonium-210, and chloroform in the monitoring wells.
The map shows the plume of contamination spreading from a late 1970s leak at the dump to the southwest of the facility.
The EPA standard is 20,000 pico curies of tritium per liter of water.
State records indicate that DHEC officials don't think nearby residents should be concerned because they don't live in the southwest flow of the contaminated groundwater, even though a small community lies directly south of the dump.
Chem-Nuclear says it's in compliance with federal and state law because by the time the tritiated water reaches a monitoring facility on Mary's Branch creek, the tritium levels have dropped below the EPA standard and the state mandate of 500,000 pico curies per liter of drinking water.
Chem-Nuclear says it will test the wells of any of its neighbors and that it has been sealing closed sections of the landfill over the last few years to keep rainwater out of those areas and, ultimately, the groundwater.
Nearby residents don't think that Chem-Nuclear should be invited to test their wells.
Bill Steed has lived south of the landfill since 1978 and told The State, "They have not checked either of my wells."
He's not so sure Chem-Nuclear has his best interests at heart since the information was considered to be proprietary and secret, until The State slapped them with an FOIA request.
Steed added, "It's got to be a concern ... I know that water runs downhill."
Well Mr. Steed, that ain't the only thing.
So, while all the "energy security" blather is designed to capitalize upon a fear of the unknown, just remember what a great job the energy conglomerates did with nuclear power and its attendant waste in the first go-round.