BOISE, Idaho - Saturday is the 41st anniversary of the partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant. Experts say there are lessons in the incident, including for Idaho, where waste from the plant eventually ended up.

Associate Professor of English and Sustainability at Stony Brook University Heidi Hutner is the director of the documentary "Accidents Can Happen: The Women of Three Mile Island," which features four women left in the dark about the accident, inspiring them to join the anti-nuclear movement.

Hutner sees a lot of parallels between 1979 and now. She hopes Three Mile Island can be instructive.

"Because we still have many nuclear power plants operating and there's talk about building new nuclear power plants, I think it's essential that we look back at how that was handled - before, during and after - and be sure we don't replicate those errors," says Hutner.

At the Idaho National Laboratory, a first-of-its-kind nuclear power plant project - involving 12 small, modular reactors submerged in a single pool of water - has been proposed and is awaiting federal approval.

Executive Director of the Snake River Alliance Holly Harris says the proposed project from Oregon-based company NuScale would mostly provide power out of state.

She says the project comes with a lot of risks since it sits above the Snake River aquifer, which provides drinking water for about 300,000 Idahoans, and the nuclear industry has yet to come up with a long-term storage solution for nuclear waste.

Harris adds that renewable energy is less expensive, cleaner and more reliable than nuclear, and that she believes NuScale is experimenting with the Gem State.

"Idahoans are expected to bear this burden just as they were asked to do it or forced to do it 40 years ago," says Harris.

Hutner says another parallel with Three Mile Island is that the public still often is left out of the loop. She says it's time to start listening to affected communities.

"Who gets to decide what kind of energy we use?" asks Hutner. "Who makes the decisions? Is it the local people who will be impacted or is it a larger industry that stands to make a lot of money?"

A new agreement on plans for cleaning up nuclear waste at the Hanford site in Washington state is receiving pushback from environmental groups.

Public comment was originally scheduled to close at the beginning of August but has been extended to Sept. 1 for the Tri-Party Agreement between the U-S Energy Department, Environmental Protection Agency and Washington Department of Ecology.

Simone Anter, staff attorney and Hanford program director for the nonprofit Columbia Riverkeeper, said the new agreement means changes to the cleanup efforts including how and where the Hanford nuclear waste is stored.

"If new proposals are coming out to ship either grouted or liquid nuclear waste across the region, communities deserve to know that and deserve to have a voice and deserve to be engaged," Anter contended.

The agreement for dealing with 177 underground storage tanks at Hanford took four years of closed door negotiations. Columbia Riverkeeper and other environmental groups worry the new agreement opens the door for a storage method other than vitrification, which is used to turn high-level waste into glass.

Anter noted tribal nations in the region were not consulted about the proposal. She stressed even if they could not be part of the agreement, the agencies should have been considered before it was presented to the public.

"Tribal nations are not members of the public. They are government entities and should have been treated as such," Anter pointed out.

Anter added members of the public can play a big role in how the 56 million gallons of nuclear waste at Hanford are handled.

"It's really important that all these cleanup decisions put human health, the Columbia River and the environment first," Anter asserted. "I think public comments play an enormous role in reminding the TPA agencies about this."

Some organizations are renewing calls to address radioactive contamination in U.S. food and drinking water.

The issue has gained prevalence in the past year, since Japan has started releasing treated and diluted radioactive wastewater into the Pacific Ocean from the major nuclear accident in Fukushima in 2011.

James Gormley, president of the advocacy group Citizens for Health, said in a webinar some of the substances in the wastewater can make their way into fish and other foods, and it can have harmful effects on ecosystems and the public.

"The most important effect is the effect on people," Gormley emphasized. "Bioaccumulation in the oceans. Bioaccumulation in people and in their organs. Pathological effects, epidemiological effects."

Some Missourians are familiar with the effect of radioactive contamination. Several St. Louis neighborhoods saw elevated cancer levels in the mid-20th century, after atomic waste spilled and contaminated the area.

Multiple state lawmakers have supported compensating the communities exposed to radiation.

The Food and Drug Administration has said it's maintaining its radioactivity standards as Japan discharges wastewater and doesn't expect changes to food or water supplies.

Some scientists have said they would like to see tighter standards and enhanced testing.

Bob Richmond, research professor and director of the Kewalo Marine Laboratory at the University of Hawaii-Manoa, agrees. In the same webinar, he explained once a company dumps something into the ocean, it does not quickly dilute.

"The ocean is not a sterile aquarium, and once these radionuclides go into the ocean, they are taken up," Richmond explained. "They are tropically transferred throughout the food web, and they can be bioaccumulated and biomagnified in organisms."

The FDA said it has tested numerous Japanese products including seafood, tea and ginger and has not detected anything close to problematic. Still, it will be an ongoing issue, as discharges at Fukushima are scheduled to continue for the next 30 years.


get more stories like this via email

Environmental groups in Tennessee will soon learn more about the approval process behind a radioactive waste landfill which has been processing and storing highly enriched uranium for six decades.

The group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility sued the Environmental Protection Agency to gain access to documents related to the approval of the Y12 Uranium Processing Facility in Oak Ridge.

Jeff Ruch, Pacific director for the group, explained the landfill is being built despite objections from senior government officials. He said they used a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain the documents and the EPA has agreed to provide 400 documents a month, through September.

"The fact that EPA is not being candid about this indicates that they have something to hide," Ruch contended. "And they've already produced several hundred documents, almost none of which are substantive. We do a lot of FOIA litigation and for us, it's a kind of a safe form of whistleblowing."

Ruch pointed out one issue is the Clean Water Act protections for the streams running by the landfill and emptying into other bodies of water have been set aside. He added unacceptable levels of radiation in the water will affect the fish and wildlife. Critics of the uranium-enriching process say it poses safety and health risks to Tennesseans.

Tanvi Kardile, coordinator for the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, said her group continues to raise concerns to local communities and lawmakers about what it sees as the environmental hazards and public health risks tied to creating a landfill for toxic waste.

"Oak Ridge has pretty high cancer rates already, because of the Y12 weapons complex," Kardile asserted. "As an organization, we're worried about the increase of cancer rates because of a radioactive waste landfill."