Danger intensifies around Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in southern Ukraine
The Russian army is transforming Europe’s largest nuclear power plant into a military base overlooking an active front, intensifying a monthslong safety crisis for the vast facility and its thousands of staff. At the
Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in southern Ukraine, more than 500 Russian soldiers who seized the facility in March recently have deployed heavy artillery batteries, and laid anti-personnel mines along the shores of the reservoir whose water cools its six reactors, according to workers, residents, Ukrainian officials, and diplomats.
The Ukrainian army holds the towns dotted on the opposite shore, some 3 miles away, but sees no easy way to attack the plant, given the inherent danger of artillery battles around active nuclear reactors.
Wall St Journal 5th July 2022
New Energy Security Bill waters down regulation for fusion, warns Nuclear Free Local Authorities
As the Nuclear Free Local Authorities have feared, following a pre-Christmas BEIS consultation, the Johnson Government has recently revealed its plans to relax the regulatory regime applicable to future fusion reactors by choosing not to classify them as ‘nuclear installations’.
Fission nuclear reactors are subject to nuclear site licencing requirements overseen by the Office of Nuclear Regulation under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 (NIA 1965), but government ministers have now decided that fusion plants should instead be regulated by the Health and Safety Executive and Environment Agency like other industrial facilities. The new Energy Security Bill just introduced to Parliament by the Business Secretary will exclude fusion reactors from the provisions of the NIA 1965.
Ministers claim that fusion does not present the same ‘higher hazards’ found in fission plants, but the NFLA fears that their decision is about making the UK attractive to investors in their haste to make the UK a ‘fusion industry superpower’ rather than prioritising public safety.
In its response to the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) consultation, the NFLA had called for ‘no watering down’ of the regime, challenging the notion that fusion was largely without risk.
For research commissioned by the NFLA revealed that fusion would result in the production of large quantities of radioactive waste, with the risk that radioactive tritium could enter the water supply. Fusion also requires immense temperatures, hotter than the sun, to spark and sustain a fusion reaction and this energy must be safely contained using challenging and unproven engineering solutions. Operation would also result in the whole structure being subjected to prolonged exposure to neutron radiation, a situation which if not carefully monitored could result in the very integrity of the reactor vessel being placed in jeopardy.
The Chair of the NFLA Steering Committee, Councillor David Blackburn, said: “The NFLA’s view is that the government’s decision is misguided. It seems blasé to treat a fusion plant for regulatory purposes in the same way as a factory making chemical products. Fusion presents some of the same hazards and challenges as fission, but some are new; surely then fusion is nuclear and so a plant utilizing this technology must be a ‘nuclear installation’.
“In the view of the NFLA, there is no logical reason on safety grounds not to apply the same regulatory regime to fusion reactors as fission reactors. By signalling through the Energy Security Act their determination to exclude fusion from the rigours of the licencing regime, it seems clear that the present government is more focused on reducing the regulatory and cost burden on investors and commercial operators entering the market, putting expediency and profits before public safety.”
On waste management and decommissioning, the government’s position is even more unclear with ministers calling it ‘premature’ to outline clear proposals at this time, something the NFLA is especially perturbed about.
Councillor Blackburn added: “It is a shame that ministers have missed a trick by refusing to state clearly that future operators will have to share a greater burden of the cost of decommissioning and waste management, rather than passing the bill to the Nuclear Liabilities Fund and ultimately the British taxpayer.”
EDF’s nuclear security shortfalls
EDF under scrutiny for nuclear security ‘shortfalls’. Hinkley Point C
developer placed under enhanced monitoring over threat of digital attacks.
Nuclear regulators have stepped up their monitoring of French power giant
EDF amid concerns about cyber security. The UK’s Office for Nuclear
Regulation (ONR) has put the company under “enhanced attention” after
finding “shortfalls” in its cyber security plans, The Telegraph can
reveal.
French state-owned EDF owns and runs the UK’s nuclear power
fleet. It is also building the UK’s first new nuclear power station in a
generation, Hinkley Point C in Somerset, with its minority Chinese partner
CGN.
Cyber security is of heightened concern nationally amid Russia’s war
on Ukraine. Russia has been blamed for cyber attacks which disrupted
windfarms in Europe on the eve of its invasion and security officials have
called on British organisations to bolster their defences.
In a blog post
last week, Dr Marsha Quallo-Wright, deputy director for Private Sector
Critical National Infrastructure at the National Cyber Security Centre,
said “now is not the time for complacency” despite no significant cyber
attacks on UK organisations since Russia’s invasion.
The ONR has stepped
up monitoring of EDF following a string of routine inspections over the
past 12 months, during which it said it “identified shortfalls in
governance, risk and compliance and certain technical controls”. EDF said
the shortfalls related to cyber security. A spokesman added: “EDF works
in very close partnership with the National Cyber Security Centre and some
joint studies with them identified some areas for improvement, such as in
risk awareness. “We are constantly striving to improve security and work
with various bodies, including the ONR, to achieve this. The cyber threat
is a constantly evolving area and we want to stay ahead of the threat.”
Telegraph 9th July 2022
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/07/09/edf-scrutiny-nuclear-security-shortfalls/
Test rocket carrying component for future nuclear armed ICBM explodes after takeoff
By Barbara Starr, CNN Pentagon Correspondent, July 8, 2022, (CNN)A test rocket carrying a component for a future US nuclear armed intercontinental ballistic missile blew up 11 seconds after takeoff Wednesday night from Vandenberg Space Force Base in California, according to a statement from the base…………
This was the first test of the Mk21A Reentry Vehicle (RV) the part of the weapon that would hold a nuclear warhead if the system was operational. There was no nuclear element or armed component to this test
The Mk21A is planned to be the reentry vehicle for the future LGM-35A Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missiles, a new ground-based nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile planned to replace the current Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile as a key element of the US nuclear deterrent capability.
The explosion comes a week after the latest test of a US hypersonic weapon failed after an “anomaly” occurred during the first test of the full system.
The test, carried out June 30 at the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Hawaii, was supposed to launch the Common Hypersonic Glide Body atop a two-stage missile booster. The booster is designed to launch the system and accelerate it to hypersonic speeds in excess of Mach 5, at which point the glide body detaches and uses its speed to reach the target. It was the first time the entire system was tested, called an All Up Round test……. https://edition.cnn.com/2022/07/08/politics/test-rocket-explodes/index.html
Nuclear power in Japan may be a mistake we are doomed to repeat
https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14663000VOX POPULI: Nuclear power in Japan may be a mistake we are doomed to repeat. Vox Populi, Vox Dei is a daily column that runs on Page 1 of The Asahi Shimbun., July 7, 2022
The Supreme Court was extremely lenient with the government in its June 17 verdict concerning the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe of 2011.
Multiple high courts had already ruled that the government was liable for damages for failing to order Tokyo Electric Power Co. to take sufficient preventive measures against a potentially disastrous tsunami.
The top court, however, overturned all these rulings.
Explaining the reason, the presiding justice noted to the effect that the tsunami turned out to be “simply too massive.”
The gist of his argument was that since the accident would have occurred anyway even if the government had ordered TEPCO to install a seawall, his court could not hold the government responsible as a nuclear safety regulator.
What an utterly magnanimous ruling for a government that failed to do its part. This is akin to giving someone a pass because they are too inexperienced or immature to be treated seriously.
I could not possibly support this ruling. However, trying to go along with the court’s reasoning just for the sake of argument, the conclusion to be drawn is the government was never capable of regulating a nuclear power plant at all.
Ultimately, any discussion of nuclear power boils down to whether humans are ever capable of being a party to handling it.
Radioactive nuclear waste must be kept isolated for an utterly mind-boggling period of 100,000 years. We have also learned that once a nuclear accident occurs, we cannot even go near the accident site, let alone control it.
For some years after the Fukushima disaster, the idea of ending nuclear power generation was a major issue in national elections.
A decade has elapsed, however, and the issue is hardly “hot” in the July 10 Upper House election. In fact, the recent rise in energy prices has given a boost to advocates for a greater reliance on nuclear energy.
If radioactive nuclear waste could talk, it must be scoffing at our forgetfulness and taunting us: “You will never be able to measure us by your yardstick.”
Macron facing ‘Fukushima-style’ accident, as EDF reactor cracks force shutdown
FRENCH President Emmanuel Macron is facing a nightmare situation as cracks in EDF’s reactors threaten to create accidents as devastating as Fukushima, Express.co.uk was told.
EDF is in a parlous financial state, with huge debts, and all the builds of its flagship EPR reactor have had huge cost and time over-runs – not a good look.
Antony Ashkenaz, Express, Jul 3, 2022
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1633756/macron-facing-nuclear-nightmare-edf-reactor-crack-risks-fukushima-style-horror-energy France is facing a relatively unique energy crisis when compared to other countries in Europe. The country is not heavily dependent on natural gas, Russian or otherwise, getting most of its energy supplies from nuclear power, which generates 70 percent of the country’s electricity. However, Paris has been forced to shut down many French reactors, as a recent report warned Mr Macron of significant corrosion safety problems in EDF [Electricité de France] nuclear power plants in France as cracks were detected in some nuclear reactors.
Speaking to Express.co.uk, Dr Bernard Laponche, the co-author of this study warned that in many of these reactors, cracks to cooling systems could cause devastating accidents.
He said: “If the defects are detected in or near the welds, or near the junction between these and the primary cooling circuit cause a breach in the cooling system with an important loss of water, this can lead to the partial or total melting of the fuel assemblies in the reactor core.
“That means the possibility of a Three Mile Island or a Fukushima-type accident.”
As a result of these corrosion problems, four 1500 MW, seven 1300 MW and one 900 MW reactors are shut down.
Meanwhile, engineers are working on fixing segments of the cooling circuits where the cracks were identified.
Dr Laponche warned that all other reactors will likely be checked for these issues within the next year.
If further evidence of cracks are found, the corresponding part of the reactor will be removed and replaced, in a procedure that Dr Laponche estimates could take a year.
He added: “This means that a large part of the EDF nuclear fleet will be gradually shut down.
“Next winter, France will reopen coal and gas plants. But the country has very few of them and it will have to import a maximum of electricity from abroad.
“Important efforts will be necessary to reduce electricity consumption, particularly at the winter peak (due in particular to a high proportion of electrical heating).”
Last week, the heads of France’s major energy companies penned a letter, issuing a dire warning about the energy crisis, urging individuals and businesses to limit power consumption immediately.
They wrote: “We need to work collectively to reduce our consumption in order to regain room to manoeuvre.
“Taking action as soon as this summer will allow us to be better prepared at the start of next winter, notably for preserving our gas reserves.”
The news of cracks in EDF reactors in France could also spell danger for the energy company’s nuclear projects in the UK, Dr Laponche warned.
He continued: “Although all the EPRs reactors are shut (Olkiluoto and Taishan) or not yet functioning (Flamanville 3 in France), there is a high probability that the same problem does exist on these reactors, including those at Hinkley Point.
“EDF should be questioned on this point.”
EDF is currently building the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station in Somerset and was previously set to come online in 2026, but has since been delayed due to Covid-19.
Speaking to Express.co.uk, Dr Paul Dorfman, an associate Fellow at SPRU University of Sussex, who was not involved in the study criticised EDF and the French nuclear fleet as whole saying: “The French nuclear corporation, EDF, runs the UK nuclear reactor fleet, is building at Hinkley Point C and wants to build at Sizewell C.
“But EDF is in a parlous financial state, with huge debts, and all the builds of its flagship EPR reactor have had huge cost and time over-runs – not a good look.
!As Lord Deben, Chair of UK Parliamentary Committee on Climate Change has just said: ‘The nuclear industry doesn’t deliver on time and doesn’t deliver to budget…. So there’s a real concern about how qualified (EDF) are to do these things.’
Express.co.uk has reached out to EDF for comments on the findings of the report.
Ukraine says link restored to Zaporizhzhia nuclear station
July 1 (Reuters) – Ukraine’s nuclear power operator said on Friday it had re-established its connection to surveillance systems at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, Europe’s largest, which is occupied by Russian forces.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N.’s atomic watchdog, has said it wants to inspect the plant in southern Ukraine urgently, but Ukrainian authorities oppose any such visit while Russian forces remain in control………………………. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-says-link-restored-zaporizhzhia-nuclear-station-2022-07-01/
The IAEA Needs Access to Ukraine’s Nuclear Power Plant. Biden Can Help
https://thedispatch.com/p/the-iaea-needs-access-to-ukraines
Since Russia seized the plant in March, the safety and security of the plant have been in jeopardy. Anthony Ruggiero and Andrea Stricker, 30 June 22,
“Untenable.” That’s how Rafael Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), last week described the situation at Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant (ZNPP), which Russia seized in March. He said that every day “the independent work and assessments of Ukraine’s regulator are undermined,” the “risk of an accident or a security breach increases.” Grossi asserted he wants to send an IAEA mission to the ZNPP, which is Europe’s largest nuclear power plant. In a twist, however, Ukraine’s atomic energy regulators, presumably at the direction of Kyiv, have rejected Grossi’s request.
Ukraine believes an IAEA visit to the ZNPP would legitimize Russia’s control of the complex. Grossi has rejected that characterization, emphasizing that “it is absolutely incorrect. When I go there, I will be going there under the same agreement that Ukraine passed with the IAEA, not the Russian Federation.” President Joe Biden urgently needs to convince Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to let the IAEA in to ensure the ZNPP is safe and secure.
The ZNPP, located in east Ukraine, is a facility with six light water reactors, and it produced up to one-fifth of Ukraine’s electricity production before the war. To gain control of it, Russia shelled the area with missiles, sparking a widely reported fire. The missile attack spurred fears that Moscow could further damage the facility and cause a nuclear radiological incident that could harm Ukrainian civilians and neighboring countries.
Ukrainian authorities brought the fire under control, but Russia installed officials from its atomic energy agency, Rosatom, to oversee day-to-day work of Ukrainian personnel. The State Nuclear Regulatory Inspectorate of Ukraine warned in a statement that life at Zaporizhzhia has become intolerable under Moscow’s direction: Russia’s military and representatives of Russia’s Rosatom and its subsidiary Rosenergoatom “constantly terrorize and directly threaten the lives of the plant personnel.”
The Wall Street Journal reported this month that Russian military officers have been interrogating ZNPP employees to assess their loyalties to Moscow and reprimanding “workers who speak in Ukrainian rather than Russian and screening their cellphones for evidence of allegiance to Kyiv.” The Russians have also abducted, tortured, or shot workers. Russian officials at the plant have told workers that they intend to connect the ZNPP to Russia’s electricity grid, which would be costly and take years to accomplish, reinforcing Kyiv’s concerns that Moscow is preparing for long-term control of the facility.
Russia has not publicly opposed an IAEA visit. Grossi claimed in a June 6 statement to the IAEA Board of Governors that Ukraine had requested an IAEA mission to the plant and that the agency was ready to go. The day after Grossi’s statement, however, Ukraine’s atomic agency, Energoatom, wrote in a Telegram post that it had not invited the IAEA to visit. “We consider this message from the head of the IAEA as another attempt to get to the (power plant) by any means in order to legitimise the presence of occupiers there and essentially condone their actions,” the post stated.
In March, Grossi said that seven pillars of nuclear plant safety and security were at risk at the ZNPP. Those pillars include: maintenance of physical integrity; functional safety and security systems and equipment; freedom of operating staff to fulfill their safety and security duties and without undue pressure; a secure off-site power supply from the grid for all nuclear sites; uninterrupted logistical supply chains and transportation to and from the site; effective on-site and off-site radiation monitoring systems backed by emergency preparedness and response measures; and reliable communication with regulators and others. In his June 6 statement to the IAEA board, Grossi declared that five of seven pillars had been compromised. “This is why IAEA safety and security experts must go,” he said.
Moreover, the ZNPP stopped transmitting safeguards information to the IAEA on May 30, meaning the agency could not ascertain whether there had been theft or loss of nuclear material. “The Ukrainian regulator has informed us they have lost control of the nuclear material,” Grossi told the board.
President Biden is in a difficult spot: He is focused on fortifying Zelenskyy’s fighting forces against Russia, but Putin’s control of the ZNPP could lead to a safeguards or safety crisis in Ukraine. Biden should urge Ukraine to approve an IAEA visit. He should also insist that Russia stop its intimidation and violence against ZNPP workers and return the plant to Ukraine.
Is Nuclear Power Just Too Dangerous?
The New Republic , 1 July 22,
A survey of the world’s worst nuclear disasters highlights the catastrophic consequences of technical hubris.
On February 24, 2022, Russian troops began occupying Ukrainian territory in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. The meltdown at the Chernobyl nuclear plant 26 years earlier remains the worst nuclear disaster the world has yet experienced. …………….Soon enough it became clear that Russian forces were not actively targeting Chernobyl’s facilities, including the sarcophagus that protects the damaged reactor core. Rather, they had chosen the sparsely populated area as the fastest route from Belarus to Kyiv.
……………The International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nation’s nuclear watchdog, issued assurances that there was no cause for alarm. But nuclear watchers could be forgiven for their panic. The spotty news emerging from Chernobyl this spring uneasily echoed the trajectory of several of the world’s major nuclear disasters, including Japan’s Fukushima and Three Mile Island in the United States.
……………………None of this had yet transpired when Serhii Plokhy, a professor of history and director of the Ukrainian Institute at Harvard, began writing Atoms and Ashes: A Global History of Nuclear Disasters. Nuclear power has, in fact, been gaining popular support, despite its dangers. In recent years, some climate activists have aligned with the nuclear power industry to argue that nuclear power offers the only off-ramp from the urgent and existential threat of climate change. The World Nuclear Association, an industry lobbying group, wants to raise the share of electrical energy produced by nuclear plants from 10 to 25 percent by 2050.
While Plokhy acknowledges the threat of climate change, his study of the history of nuclear accidents has convinced him that the risks are simply too high. His account, which draws on contemporary reports of six radiological disasters as well as government investigations conducted after the fact, argues persuasively that nuclear reactors remain inherently unsafe. Nuclear engineers add new safety features after each disaster, only to be astonished by the devilish and statistically unlikely path of the next one. Citing research based on acknowledged nuclear incidents that predicts “one core meltdown accident every 37,000 reactor years,” Plohky forecasts that we will likely see another large-scale accident before 2036. We may be lucky to make it that long.
America’s first hydrogen bomb test did not go according to plan………………………………………………..
Similar scenarios unfolded in each of the cases Plokhy discusses in the book. …………………………. a storage tank for radioactive waste at the Maiak plutonium production facility had exploded, in September 1957…………………. In the critical hours leading up to a reactor fire at the U.K.’s Windscale facility, one month later, operators struggled to understand the pile’s strange behavior during a maintenance operation that had been postponed several months in the name of plutonium production. ……………….. in March 1979. Plant managers at Chernobyl made the disastrous decision to press pause halfway through a test of the backup generators to satisfy demands made by the regional administrator of the electrical grid. At Fukushima, plant designers located the backup generators below sea level for a facility nestled against the sea in a country vulnerable to earthquakes and tsunamis
The technical details in these stories matter immensely, and Plokhy excels at breaking them down. …………… The bad news is that the authorities in charge of building nuclear power plants do not always incorporate these safety features into their designs. …………… https://newrepublic.com/article/166949/nuclear-power-just-dangerous-atoms-ashes-serhii-plokhy.
Anger at dangerous nuclear convoys through Lancashire and Cumbria
An unmarked military convoy has sparked fury from campaigners after it was
spotted trundling down a motorway. The procession of olive-green military
trucks was spotted through parts of Lancashire and Cumbria while on its way
to Scotland, and some have been left furious by the “dangerous convoys”
carrying nuclear goods. A convoy of the trucks is said to have passed
Kirkham, Preston, Garstand, Lancaster, Kendal, Penrith and Carlisle on its
way to Scotland.
Daily Star 30th June 2022
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/very-dangerous-nuclear-warheads-spotted-27362768c
Britain to lift restrictions on food from Fukushima
Food from Fukushima will be freely available in the UK from Wednesday,
weeks after Boris Johnson snacked on popcorn from the Japanese prefecture
hit by a triple nuclear meltdown in March 2011. Britain restricted
Fukushima imports after the disaster, the world’s worst nuclear accident
since Chernobyl, but has gradually lifted them, even as other countries
limit or ban produce from the region. Johnson confirmed that the remaining
restrictions would end on Wednesday in a meeting the previous day with the
Japanese prime minister, Fumio Kishida, on the fringes of the G7 summit in
Germany. Johnson told Kishida that UK-Japan relations were going from
“strength to strength”.
Guardian 29th June 2022
The Chernobyl disaster: Five interesting facts about the worst nuclear accident in history
Was it human error or not?
Interesting Engineering, By Maia Mulko 27 June 22, The Chernobyl disaster occurred on 26 April 1986 at the No. 4 reactor of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant near the city of Pripyat, in the north of Ukraine, in what was then the Soviet Union. It occurred when an RBMK 1000 reactor overheated and exploded during a safety test, releasing at least 5% of the radioactive reactor core into the environment and depositing radioactive material across a wide swathe of Europe.
The explosion itself killed two engineers. Another 28 to 30 operators and firemen who helped fight the blaze died of acute radiation syndrome within a few weeks of the accident, and a number of workers later died of causes related to suspected radiation exposure.
Workers of the plant, firefighters, and residents of the nearby city of Pripyat received dangerous doses of ionizing radiation.
The event also likely had a significant environmental impact. Radiation contaminated drinking water and fish over large distances, destroyed 1.5 square miles (4 square kilometers) of pine forest, and killed or induced mutations in other plants or animals. Large areas of Belarus, Ukraine, Russia, and parts of Europe were contaminated to varying degrees……..
Here are some interesting facts about Chernobyl nuclear disaster.
1) The reactor had design flaws
The Chernobyl disaster is usually attributed to human error. Viktor Bryukhanov, the manager of construction and director of the nuclear plant, was held responsible for the accident and imprisoned for violation of safety regulations in 1987. He was released in 1991.
But now we know that the cause of the accident was most likely a combination of human error and design deficiencies in the Soviet-era RBMK 1000 reactors and that many of these faults were known by Soviet experts but kept secret from Bryukhanov.
1) The reactor had design flaws
The Chernobyl disaster is usually attributed to human error. Viktor Bryukhanov, the manager of construction and director of the nuclear plant, was held responsible for the accident and imprisoned for violation of safety regulations in 1987. He was released in 1991.
But now we know that the cause of the accident was most likely a combination of human error and design deficiencies in the Soviet-era RBMK 1000 reactors and that many of these faults were known by Soviet experts but kept secret from Bryukhanov.
Some of these flaws were:………………………………..
Additionally, the power plant operators weren’t adequately trained to work with this type of reactor. Unaware of its weaknesses, the reactor crew disabled automatic shutdown mechanisms to prepare for a test on the reactor would perform following a loss of main electrical power supply.
As the reactor began overheating, a peculiarity of the design of the control rods caused a dramatic power surge as they were inserted into the reactor, leading to the rapid increase in core reactivity.
2) The real death toll of the disaster is unknown
It took almost two weeks after the explosion for firefighters to put out the graphite-fueled fire.
But the fire wasn’t the only threat, as toxic fumes —composed mainly of fission products iodine-131, cesium-134, plutonium-239, and cesium-137— were still in the air.
Apart from the two engineers killed at the blast, 28-31 emergency workers and plant operators died of acute radiation sickness in the first three months after the accident.
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), there were also 1,800 documented cases of thyroid cancer in children living in the region who were between 0-14 years old at the time of the accident, which is “far higher than normal”. This is likely related to the release of iodine-131, which accumulates in the thyroid.
A 2005 report by the United Nations estimated that up to 4,000 deaths might ultimately result from radiation exposure from the accident..
The Chernobyl nuclear disaster also increased unnecessary induced abortions due to fear of birth defects ……..
3) Evacuations started 36 hours after the accident
Many people in Pripyat —located around 2 miles (3 kilometers) from the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant— began suffering from symptoms like headaches and vomiting within a hours after the accident, but an evacuation wasn’t ordered until 36 hours after the accident.
This was likely due to the fact that the Soviet authorities were reluctant to acknowledge first that an accident had occurred and then the full extent of the accident. On April 28, radiation levels set off alarms at the Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant in Sweden, around 620 mi (1,000 km) from Chernobyl. However, when the Swedish government contacted the Soviets, they initially denied an accident had taken place at all and only admitted it once the Swedish government said they were about to file a report
with the International Atomic Energy Agency
Although Pripyat inhabitants were initially told that they would only be away for three days, the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone (officially called the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Zone of Alienation) was created about 10 days later with a radius of 30 kilometers (19 miles) of the nuclear plant.
Residents never went back and Pripyat is a ghost city since then.
The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone now measures approximately 1,000 square miles (2,600 square kilometers). Around 7,000 people live and work in and around the plant (or did until the beginning of the war with Russia), and around 150 have returned to the surrounding villages, despite the risks.
4) The “liquidator” status
Civil and military personnel exposed to radiation while trying to mitigate the effects of the nuclear disaster were termed “liquidators”. Those who worked as liquidators have a similar status to veterans and are entitled to certain social benefits, although many have since complained of a deterioration in their compensation and medical support over time.
Around 600,000 people were granted the status of “liquidator.” They were mainly men and women who worked on the clean-up and decontamination of the area —such as those who removed contaminated debris from the nuclear plant, those who worked on the construction of the “sarcophagus” (a steel and concrete structure to cover the exploded reactor and prevent further contamination), those who helped build settlements for evacuees, etc.
Fortunately, many radioactive elements released into the air are short-lived, but strontium-90 and cesium-137 each have around a 30-year half-life. These elements have been found in lakes, and they are also present in the water and fish of rivers of Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus, as well as in the air of the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone. https://interestingengineering.com/chernobyl-disaster-facts-worst-nuclear-accident
Ukraine shuts down its co-operative agreements with Russia in the matter of nuclear power safety
Ukraine terminates Russia nuclear agreements, WNN, 27 June 2022,
The State Nuclear Regulatory Inspectorate of Ukraine (SNRIU) says it has terminated international agreements concerning cooperation between the country and Russia in the field of nuclear safety
In a statement posted on its website on 27 June, SNRIU said that “due to the military aggression of the Russian Federation, the State Inspectorate for Nuclear Regulation of Ukraine terminates international agreements concerning cooperation between countries in the field of nuclear safety”.
It said the order was signed on 24 June by Acting Chairman Oleg Korikov and terminated an agreement on cooperation between the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety of Ukraine and the Federal Supervision of Nuclear and Radiation Safety of Russia which was signed in Vienna in September 1996. It also terminates the agreement between the State Nuclear Regulatory Committee of Ukraine and the Federal Nuclear and Radiation Safety Supervision of Russia on the exchange of information and cooperation in the field of safety regulation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, which was signed in Moscow in August 2002……………………….
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has warned about the number of key nuclear safety rules which have been broken as a result of the military action in and around nuclear power plants, and the continuining occupation of Zaporizhzhia.
IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi, who has been trying to organise a mission for its inspectors to Zaporizhzhia, said he was becoming increasingly concerned…………….. https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Ukraine.
As world leaders promote nuclear power as SAFE, a dangerous situation develops at Europe’s largest nuclear power plant _- Zaporizhzia in Ukraine !
| Ukraine’s nuclear regulatory agency faces an unprecedented struggle to maintain nuclear safety, most notably including “terrorism against firefighters and nuclear power plant personnel” at the Russian-occupied Zaporozhye nuclear power plant, according to Oleg Korikov, the organization’s beleaguered interim head. Korikov warned fellow Europeanregulators in Europe that Ukraine’s Nuclear Regulatory Inspectorate (SNRIU) is unprepared for further deterioration at Zaporozhye, a six-reactor facility that is Europe’s largest nuclear plant, and is essentially in uncharted waters. “We do not have rules, regulations [for] how we can regulate, how we can operate, in these conditions,” said Korikov. Staff at Zaporozhye “is under heavy psychological pressure of Russian soldiers,” theSNRIU’s acting chairman and chief state inspector told a Jun. 20 meeting of the European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group. There is “kidnapping and attacks on nuclear power plant staff” in Enerhodar, the Russian-occupied city closest to the plant. “We have evidence of this.” This appeared to = confirm what has emerged as one of the most troubling aspects of the situation at Zaporozhye and Enerhodar since both were occupied by Russian troops on Mar. 4: the kidnapping, intimidation, interrogation and torture of Zaporozhye workers. Energy Intelligence 24th June 2022 https://www.energyintel.com/00000181-910f-d7da-adc1-976f35b80000 |
What happened at Santa Susana? — Beyond Nuclear International
A meltdown contaminated a community. A fire made it worse
What happened at Santa Susana? — Beyond Nuclear International A 1959 meltdown and a 2018 fire compounded a tragedy
By Carmi Orenstein
When the United Nations Human Rights Council officially recognized access to “a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment” as a basic human right earlier last October, it was an acknowledgement fifty years in the making. It was backed by an international grassroots effort, with the journey to the final vote including the voices of more than 100,000 children around the world and multiple generations of allies pushing against powerful corporate opposition.
Just about the time that this half-century-long campaign to enshrine the right to a safe environment kicked off, a story about the horrific violation of this same human right and its cover-up emerged in a community near my own childhood home in Southern California.
In 1979, a UCLA student named Michael Rose uncovered evidence of a partial nuclear meltdown at the Santa Susana Field Lab (SSFL) in the Simi Hills outside of Los Angeles. The SSFL, formerly known as Rocketdyne, played key government roles throughout the Cold War, developing and testing rocket engines and conducting experiments with nuclear reactors. Today, as the result of a recently published peer-reviewed study that represents the dogged efforts of both professional researchers and a team of specially trained citizens, we have solid evidence of the spread of dangerous contamination from that site.
Working with nuclear safety expert and then-UCLA professor Daniel Hirsch, Rose discovered documentation that the partial nuclear meltdown had occurred at SSFL twenty years earlier in 1959, releasing up to 459 times more radiation into the environment than the infamous meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor in Pennsylvania. Unlike the Three Mile Island facility, the SSFL reactors lacked containment structures—those tell-tale concrete domes that surround commercial nuclear power plants to prevent radiation spread in case of a nuclear accident.
In addition to the 1959 meltdown, at least three of the site’s other nuclear reactors experienced accidents (in 1957, 1964 and 1969), and radioactive and chemical wastes burned in open-air pits as a matter of practice. A “hot lab,” which may have been the nation’s largest, was also located at SSFL, and, in 1957, it burned and was known to have spread radioactivity throughout the site. A progress report from the period states, “Because such massive contamination was not anticipated, the planned logistics of cleanup were not adequate for the situation.”
The rest of this story is an object lesson in what happens when the right to a safe environment is not universally acknowledged and when secretive, long-forgotten toxic legacies of the Cold War meet the unpredictable chaos of the current climate crisis. Real people are harmed in ways that are not easily remediable—including, perhaps, members of my family.
The radioactive contamination of the surrounding environment caused by the partial nuclear meltdown at the 2,849-acre SSFL site was not cleaned up by the time of Rose’s revelation. Nor was the extensive toxic chemical contamination on site. It is still not cleaned up. Thus, when the climate chaos-fueled Woolsey Fire erupted at, and burned through, the SSFL in 2018, the flames served to spread the contamination even further. The fire quickly burned 80 percent of the SSFL property, and onward, all the way to the ocean. Pushed by high winds and uncontained for nearly two weeks, the Woolsey Fire killed three people outright and destroyed over 1,600 structures.
Today, public knowledge of the original disaster and its continued radioactive and toxic legacy is still patchy. The silence that surrounded the catastrophe in 1959 gave way to intermittent waves of focused media attention, celebrity involvement, and inquiry and outcry on the part of elected officials in the years since the 1979 expose. These have been followed by whistleblower accounts from former workers, and various forms of citizen activism. While occasional news of confidential legal settlements addressing illness and contamination breaks through, the Santa Susana disaster is hardly a household name—including among those of us who grew up in its shadow.
The suburbs on either side of the SSFL, in Ventura County and a western edge of Los Angeles County, are still expanding. More than 500,000 people currently live within about ten miles of the site. Parents vs. SSFL is the dynamic, parent-led group currently at the helm of public monitoring of, and demand for, a comprehensive cleanup. On their social media sites, one often sees public comments from nearby residents along the lines of why were we not told?
To be sure, the history of site ownership and responsibility is complex and makes redress of grievance vexing. Although Rocketdyne owned the facility at the time of the meltdown, most of the site is now owned by Boeing. However, some of the property is owned by NASA, who in turn leases parts of its property as SSFL to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the lead regulatory agency for remediation, entered into a Consent Order with these “responsible parties,” in 2007. In 2010, stricter agreements were signed with DOE and NASA to clean up the properties for which they are responsible to “background levels.”
In 2017 a legally binding agreement deadline for completion of cleanup was blown by, with no meaningful cleanup begun. In 2018 the Woolsey Fire came roaring through. That fire is now documented to have redistributed radioactive materials and toxic chemicals in surrounding areas. Non-binding, confidential negotiations with Boeing were just announced early this year. It is a confounding and maddening journey to anyone attempting to follow.
As Melissa Bumstead, co-founder of Parents vs SSFL, said in a Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles press release about the new study: “The bottom line is, if SSFL had been cleaned up by 2017 as required by the cleanup agreements, the community wouldn’t have had to worry about contamination released by the Woolsey Fire.” …………………………………….
UCLA professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences Suzanne E. Paulson also weighed in. Speaking to a reporter the next year, Paulson explained,
Assuming that radioactive material was in the soil [and] vegetation burned, it is reasonable that it traveled 30 miles downwind, and some of it got deposited in downwind areas… When soil and vegetation burn, the material in them, including metals [and] soil minerals, end up in the aerosol particles that make smoke look dark and hazy. They are small enough that they can remain in the atmosphere for up to a week and as a result can be widely dispersed.
At the end of 2018, just weeks after the Woolsey Fire was finally extinguished, work commenced on the independent study that was ultimately published online in early October and would appear in the December 2021 issue of the Journal of Environmental Radioactivity. This paper represents the work of community-volunteer citizen scientists who were trained to collect dust and ash samples in a 9-mile radius throughout the rural, urban, suburban, and undeveloped mountainous area around the SSFL. Their data collection was followed by the slow and careful work of scientific analysis. In a society whose governmental structures and policies decidedly are not guided by the Precautionary Principle today, and where there are no efficient mechanisms by which to correct past regulatory errors—no matter how grave—these volunteers and their three research leaders have provided powerful, incriminating evidence with which the community and its allies will push forward for the cleanup.
…………………………. “Woolsey Fire ash did, in fact, spread SSFL-related radioactive microparticles.” The authors also wrote, “Excessive alpha radiation in small particles is of particular interest because of the relatively high risk of inhalation-related long-term biological damage from internal alpha emitters compared to external radiation.”……………………………………………..
How did the entities with knowledge and power continue to delay and obstruct while the population boomed and crept up the hillsides near the SSFL, knowing full well that powerful human health hazards were there to meet the communities, new and old? The statement by DTSC proclaiming that no contaminants were carried, while the Woolsey Fire was still burning, smacks of the most brazen regulatory capture. …………………………….. Carmi Orenstein is Program Director at Concerned Heath Professionals of New York. https://wordpress.com/read/feeds/72759838/posts/4098311628
1 This Month
26 September – International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons
PLEASE OPPOSE HR 8255 AND S.3639 – bills would accelerate satellite deployment, with no environmental review or safeguards – https://ncstd5li.quorum.us/campaign/169331/
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- September 2026 (219)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (375)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 