conduct research on nuclear energy and radiation

Search the United Nations

• UNAI Principles
• Map of UNAI Members
• List of UNAI Members
• Special Series
• Select UN Events
• UNAI Events
• SDGs Best Practices
• SDGs Guidelines
• SDGs Training Sessions
• SDGs Workshops
• The Why Join Guide
• Tools for Researchers
• Bulletin Board
• Submit an Activity Report
• Become a Millennium Fellow
• UNAI Voices
• Sustainable Development Goals
• UN Agencies
• UN Information Centres
• Dag Hammarskjöld Library
• UN Stories Archive
• UN Publications
• Internships

Advancing Nuclear Research: Countering Cancer and Climate Change

Nuclear research is driving innovation in science, technology, medicine, and clean energy for the benefit of communities around the globe. The Nuclear Technology Review 2022 issued  by the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, already underlined that “the use of nuclear energy beyond electricity production is enjoying unprecedented momentum worldwide” and that “global interest in research reactors continued to grow.” The report also highlighted the relevance of isotope-based theranostics in cancer management, and the many “therapeutic applications in nuclear medicine.”

McMaster University , a member institution of the United Nations Academic Impact (UNAI) in Canada, is home to a suite of nuclear research facilities anchored by the  McMaster Nuclear Reactor  (MNR). This research reactor provides neutrons for scientific research and medical isotope production. Nuclear research and education institutions have a critical role to play in finding solutions to pressing global challenges – including the urgent need for safe and reliable clean energy, the growing demand for radiation-based cancer therapies, and the discovery of new materials with applications in research, technology, and medicine.

Radiation-based technologies are used worldwide to diagnose and treat diseases and sterilize medical equipment. The need for new nuclear medicines has grown significantly over recent years, with an  estimated  40 million nuclear medicine procedures performed yearly and the demand for radioisotopes increasing to 5% annually. McMaster University is uniquely positioned to help meet this growing demand and, in doing so, contribute to  Sustainable Development Goal 3: Good Health and Well-Being . On that note, nuclear medicine has been at the core of McMaster’s nuclear research profile for decades.

Being a world-leading supplier of two medical isotopes – Iodine-125 and Holmium-166 – staff at the McMaster Nuclear Reactor produce isotopes that treat approximately 70,000 cancer patients annually. The isotopes are irradiated inside the reactor’s core, then processed and packaged for shipment to patients in Canada and countries around the globe. Medical isotopes have varying lifespans, with some lasting only a few days before they start to decay and become unusable. Often, medical isotopes must be produced and transported to the patient within a short timeframe – a process this Canadian university has honed over the years.

As the world looks toward a low-carbon future, there is an urgent need for clean energy solutions. Experts at McMaster University are paving a path for a new class of nuclear reactors that can potentially transform clean energy production – the Small Modular Reactor (SMR). This type of reactor functions like a larger one but at a fraction of the size, providing clean, safe, and reliable energy powered by nuclear fission. They are ideal for installation in remote communities and on industrial sites, with their components pre-manufactured and then installed on-site, being more cost- and time-effective than custom-building a nuclear reactor for a particular location.

In 2020, the Canadian government released its  SMR Action Plan , recognizing the potential benefits of SMRs. As part of the Plan, McMaster University will work to advance SMR research, education, and training at the university and explore the potential of hosting an SMR on- or off-campus. The university’s SMR vision focuses on showing the significant impact this technology can have on communities needing clean power. McMaster is currently conducting a feasibility study, in consultation with a wide range of stakeholders, including Indigenous communities, to investigate the environmental, economic, and social effects of SMRs. 

McMaster University’s experts spearhead research and education programs in SMR technology validation, nuclear safety, waste reduction, nuclear security, site monitoring, and integrated urban energy systems. The institution is also home to the Small Modular Advanced Reactor Training Program, designed to train the next generation of SMR research, safety, and deployment leaders, and has a crucial role in developing energy solutions. Moreover, the MNR provides researchers with neutrons and positrons for various applications, including materials characterization and scattering techniques. 

Researchers use McMaster University’s nuclear facilities to study and develop various materials. Once researchers have designed a potentially advanced material, they need to characterize it at the atomic level to check its structure, the presence of irregularities, or the size of defects on its surface. Neutrons are unique in their ability to penetrate deep into dense materials like metals, making it possible to visualize the interior of an object without physically damaging it. The institution’s facilities are advancing research and discovery of new superconductors, micro-structured steels, biomaterials, wearable electronics, medical devices, photonic structures, and more.

Moreover, in support of the future of materials science, McMaster University and the University of Saskatchewan are leading  Neutrons Canada  – a new not-for-profit research organization designed to govern, manage and represent Canada’s infrastructure program for research and development with neutron beams. The program will facilitate national and international partnerships that secure access to world-leading neutron laboratories and enhance the operation of Canada’s domestic neutron beam facilities – enabling scientists to advance materials research and address challenges such as climate change, a clean economy, safety, security, and health. 

For over six decades, McMaster University has harnessed the power of nuclear science to drive knowledge creation, medical isotope production, and tremendous economic, health, and social benefits. Most importantly, McMaster is furthering  Sustainable Development Goal 4: Quality Education  and building the next generation of nuclear experts to help create a brighter world and generate solutions to current and future global challenges. The university is also forging partnerships with the nuclear industry and education leaders to facilitate experiential learning programs for undergraduate and graduate students pursuing careers in nuclear science. 

“As Canada’s Nuclear University, McMaster is committed to advancing cutting-edge nuclear research and educational opportunities that benefit our local, national and global communities. Our world-class nuclear research facilities and experts are driving innovation in nuclear medicine, clean energy and advanced materials to support the Sustainable Development Goals and secure a healthier, more sustainable world for all,” says David Farrar, President of McMaster University.

Panel discussion on "Strengthening Gender Equality in Generative AI"

This event aimed to facilitate a discourse on academic research related to generative AI with a specific focus on advancing, promoting, and safeguarding gender equality. It will delve into the incorporation of human flaws, such as gender bias, into generative AI systems and emphasize the responsibility of academia and users in ensuring gender equality within these applications.

2024 Calendar of Selected United Nations Events

Goal of the Month | April 2024: Goal 4 - Quality Education

United nations.

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights

TAKE ACTION

• Lazy Person's Guide
• UN Volunteers
• Youth Engagement
• Past Contests and Scholarships
• Request a Speaker
• Visit the UN

NEWS AND MEDIA

• UN News Centre
• Press Releases
• Office of the Spokesperson
• UN in Action
• UN Social Media
• The Essential UN

ISSUES AND CAMPAIGNS

• SDG of the Month
• Observances and Commemorations
• Celebrity Advocates for the UN

• Our Mission

The Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP) is a nonprofit educational and scientific organization, established by scientists and physicians dedicated to understanding the relationships between low-level, nuclear radiation and public health.

RPHP’s mission includes:

• Research : Studying the links between low-level radiation and increases in diseases, especially cancer and those affecting the newborn and children.

• Education : Publishing the results of research dealing with the impact of low-level radiation on public health and to disseminate this information to the public, media, policy makers and the scientific community.

• Public awareness : Promoting public awareness and responsible public policy related to radiation and environmental policy.

Radiation and Public Health Project

Joseph Mangano Executive Director P.O. Box 1260 Ocean City, NJ 08226 [email protected]

RPHP supporters Alec Baldwin and Christie Brinkley, 2013

REPORT FINDS RISING DEATH RATES NEAR NUKE PLANT IN IMPOVERISHED AREA OF GEORGIA

Fox 2 tv in st. louis presents story on baby tooth study, feb. 28, 2024.

RESEARCH USING 100,000 BABY TEETH BEGINS

New documentary on baby tooth study premiers at film festival, utah journalist mary dickson on c-span, september 22, 2023, new report finds high and rising death rates near tennessee uranium processing facility, 2013 scientific forum on nuclear power.

Mad Science

Radioactive Baby Teeth: The Cancer Link

The Enemy Within: The High Cost of Living Near Nuclear Reactors

Deadly Deceit: Low-Level Radiation High Level Cover-Up

Low Level Radiation and Immune System Damage: An Atomic Era Legacy

Profiles In Power: The Antinuclear Movement And The Dawn Of The Solar Age

Chernobyl Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and Nature

Life's Delicate Balance: Causes and Prevention of Breast Cancer

Chemical Exposure And Disease Diagnostic and Investigative Techniques

Before the Big Bang The Origins of the Universe and the Nature of Matter

Upcoming events.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals

Nuclear energy articles from across Nature Portfolio

Related subjects.

• Nuclear fuel
• Nuclear fusion and fission
• Nuclear waste

Latest Research and Reviews

The impact of low-mode symmetry on inertial fusion energy output in the burning plasma state

Recent improvements in the indirect-drive inertial confinement fusion experiments include the achievement of burning plasma state. Here the authors report the scaling of neutron yield in a burning plasma of Deuterium-Tritium fusion reaction by including the mode-2 asymmetry.

• J. E. Ralph
• G. B. Zimmerman

Isotope engineering achieved by local coordination design in Ti-Pd co-doped ZrCo-based alloys

Hydrogen isotope effect in metal-hydrogen systems disturbs precise Deuterium/Tritium (D/T) ratio control. Here, the authors demonstrate a local coordination strategy that comprises thermodynamic destabilization with vibration enhancement of interstitial isotopes for isotope engineering.

• Jiacheng Qi

Momentum informed muon scattering tomography for monitoring spent nuclear fuels in dry storage cask

• JungHyun Bae
• Rose Montgomery
• Stylianos Chatzidakis

Simulant molten core–concrete interaction experiments in view of understanding Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Cs-bearing particles generation mechanism

• Hugo Laffolley
• Christophe Journeau
• Bernd Grambow

How turbulence spreading improves power handling in quiescent high confinement fusion plasmas

Nuclear fusion is one of the avenues pursued to generate carbon-free energy for an increasingly demanding world, but technical instrumental concerns remain, which will impact the realisation and performance of future fusion power plants. The authors employ a combined experimental, computational and theoretical approach, to elucidate the mechanism by which turbulence spreading sets the divertor (a component that extracts heat and ash produced by the fusion reaction) heat load width in fusion tokamak, and demonstrate common trends in the upstream edge turbulence intensity flux, the pressure perturbation skewness, and the turbulence mixing length, which together determine the downstream heat load width.

• George R. McKee

Integrating core physics and machine learning for improved parameter prediction in boiling water reactor operations

• M. R. Oktavian

News and Comment

Long-term, sustainable solutions to radioactive waste management.

Nuclear power plays a pivotal role in ensuring a scalable, affordable, and reliable low-carbon electricity supply. Along with other low-carbon energy technologies, nuclear energy is essential for reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, addressing climate change and air pollution, and achieving a sustainable economy. Whilst significant progress has been made in reducing the volume of final radioactive waste, its management remains one of the most important challenges when considering the continued use and expansion of nuclear energy. This recently published collection highlights the latest technological and scientific advances aimed to improve the safe, long-term, and sustainable management of wastes produced from nuclear power generation.

• Kristina Kvashnina
• Francis Claret
• Tiankai Yao

A boost for laser fusion

Inertial confinement represents one of two viable approaches for producing energy from the fusion of hydrogen isotopes. Scientists have now achieved a record yield of fusion energy when directly irradiating targets with only 28 kilojoules of laser energy.

• Vladimir Tikhonchuk

A milestone in fusion research is reached

Ignition of a millimetre-sized pellet containing a mix of deuterium–tritium, published in 2022, puts to rest questions about the capability of lasers to ignite thermonuclear fuel.

Burning plasma surprise

In a burning plasma, fusion-born α particles are the dominant source of heating. In such conditions, the deuterium and tritium ion energy distribution deviates from the expected thermal Maxwellian distribution.

• Stefano Atzeni

True to its name

• Stefanie Reichert

The influence of trust

Quick links.

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

United States Human Radiation Experiments

Cate guyman january 27, 2018, submitted as coursework for ph241 , stanford university, winter 2017, uncovering radiation experiments.

In November of 1993, the United States was hit with a big shock when records of human radiation experiments from 1944 to 1974 were suddenly released. The energy secretary at the time, Hazel R. O'Leary (fig. 1), pronounced that she was appalled at the work that her predecessors had sanctioned, and launched a full scale investigation into the records of what had happened in order to uncover the atrocities committed by the United States government. [1] Additionally, president Bill Clinton formed an advisory committee that held hearings over the course of 18 months on the human radiation experiments conducted. [2] The department of Energy's predecessors, the Manhattan Project, the Atomic Energy Commission, and the Energy Research and Development Administration, had each conducted or authorized a series radiation experiments on humans, evidently to benefit the United States during the Cold War. [3] At the time, though the United States was making incredible advances is nuclear energy, they knew little about the consequences of the radiation that these new energy resources emitted. [3] The Cuban Missile Crisis and other Cold War tensions had increased fears of nuclear war, and the military was demanding answers about radiation's effects on soldiers and astronauts. [4]

Investigation into the Experiments

The investigation lead by Secretary O'Leary found that unethical experiments had been carried out by government doctors, scientists, and military officials on as many as 20,000 people between 1944 and 1974. [2] The President's committee found that over 40,000 experiments had been conducted. [2] The experiments conducted were far reaching across the country, and often targeted individuals that either did not know the potential dangers of being involved, or did not volunteer to be involved at all. [3] Some prominent examples include 800 pregnant women being administered radioactive iron in the late 1940s at Vanderbilt university, 200 cancer patients exposed to extremely high levels of radiation in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 18 persons injected with plutonium at the University of Chicago, 11 terminally ill cancer patients injected with radioactive calcium in New York City in the late 1950s, and 19 mentally disabled teenage boys who were unknowingly exposed to radioactive ingredients in food during so called nutritional studies. [2,3,5] Some of the most famous examples include two rival experiments done on prisoners in the Washington State Prison and the Oregon State Prison respectively, to determine the dosage of radiation to male testicles to produce sterility. [3,4]

Ethics and Case Study: Washington State and Oregon State Prisons

The two examples of the prison experiments bring to light some of the ethical dilemmas that experimenters faced as they tackled the unknown consequences of radiation. While many of the other human radiation experiments that went on were clearly unethical, as the patients had no idea they were participating in harmful studies. [3] the Washington State and Oregon State radiation experiments fell into more of a grey area. The prison experiments in Washington, led by Dr. C. Alvin Paulsen, and again in Oregon, used prisoners as the ideal patients because the outcomes of the radiation could be tracked long term: in other words, they weren't gong anywhere. [4] While the prisoners were volunteers and paid a very small amount, the consent forms were "sketchy", and many ethicists argued that research on prisoners violates the standard of noncoercion because of the inherent vulnerability of a captive. [4] For example, they may have believed that cooperation would lessen their sentence or that they might have been punished had they not participated. [3] Nevertheless, in 1993 when Secretary O'Leary demanded the names of the patients from the prison experiments, Dr. Paulsen still defended his work, saying, "I think it has led to some valuable information. But you could also argue, as many do, that the end doesn't justify the means." [4] These statements beg the question: what is an ethical experiment?

Standards of Conduct in Context

In 1945, when many of the radiation experiments began, there were no clear standards of informed consent. [3] The Nuremburg code of 1949 was the first set of standards to dictate research ethics for human experimentation after the atrocities of the Nazi's in World War II. [3] This code outlines 10 principles that need to be followed, one of which is informed consent. [6] Consent dictates that the person is not coerced in any way, and that they have full and complete understanding of any potential consequences that the study might bring about. [6] Experimenting on prisoners does not fall into consent. Though it's important to remember that the experiments were a product of their time, as they were conducted before there was definitive legal standards, they were still unethical as Secretary O'Leary pointed out while she conducted her investigation.

Settlements and Aftermath

Finally, in 1996, the Federal Government settled for many of the experiments, for example, agreeing to pay $4.8 million as compensation for injecting 12 people with radioactive materials in one instance. [2] The release of the previously classified documents by Secretary O'Leary and the Clinton Administration was monumental as people realized the horror of some of the experimentation. Nevertheless, the documents and following dialogue was important in renewing the focus on ethics in any experimentation setting.

© Cate Guyman. The author grants permission to copy, distribute and display this work in unaltered form, with attribution to the author, for noncommercial purposes only. All other rights, including commercial rights, are reserved to the author.

[1] " U.S. Promises to Release Data on Plutonium Test ," New York Times, 21 Nov 93.

[2] P. J. Hilts, " U.S. to Settle for $4.8 Million in Suits on Radiation Testing ," New York Times, 20 Nov 96.

[3] M. McCally et. al. , "US Government-Sponsored Radiation Research on Humans, 1945-1975," Med. Glob. Surviv. 1 , 4, 1994.

[4] K. D. Steele, " Radiation Experiments Raise Ethical Questions ," High Country News, 4 Apr 94

[5] Z. Hussain, " MIT to Pay Victims $1.85 Million in Fernald Radiation Settlement ," The Tech 117 , No. 65, 7 Jan 98.

[6] Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals, Vol II (U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949).

A message from United Cleanup Oak Ridge, LLC

Oak Ridge: The Future Begins With Cleanup

Nuclear worker data examined in new low-dose radiation health effects study

A group of researchers analyzed recent updates to the International Nuclear Workers Study (INWORKS) and published their findings—“Cancer mortality after low dose exposure to ionising radiation in workers in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States (INWORKS): cohort study”— in the journal BMJ on August 16. The multinational research team, led by David B. Richardson of the University of California–Irvine, reports “evidence of an increase in the excess relative rate of solid cancer mortality with increasing cumulative exposure to ionizing radiation at the low dose rates typically encountered by French, U.K., and U.S. nuclear workers [and] evidence in support of a linear association between protracted low dose external exposure to ionizing radiation and solid cancer mortality.”

The need for low-dose data: Estimates of the health effects of radiation primarily have been based on the Life Span Study of Japanese atomic bomb survivors (begun in 1950), extrapolated—under the linear no threshold (LNT) model—to the much lower dose and lower dose rate radiation that may be encountered by workers in the nuclear industry and in sectors such as health care.

In the absence of reliable data on the health effects of low-dose exposures, the validity of the LNT model and its application in regulatory decision-making has been repeatedly and vigorously questioned, while the benefits of nuclear applications—including clean energy and medicine—have only grown more apparent. According to the new study, in the United States “the average person’s annual effective dose doubled between 1985 and 2006 and has remained elevated since, primarily owing to increases in exposure to ionizing radiation from medical imaging procedures.”

Support for ongoing research to obtain data on low-dose radiation health effects that could inform regulatory decision-making has been highlighted as an American Nuclear Society Grand Challenge and is emphasized in ANS Position Statement #41, Risks of Exposure to Low-Level Ionizing Radiation (updated in 2020). A June 2022 report issued by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) recommended a coordinated research program led by the Department of Energy and the National Institutes of Health to investigate causal links and better define the impacts of radiation doses, dose rates, types of radiation, and exposure duration.

The results: Data from INWORKS have been published previously. “Here, we report on a major update of analyses of associations between radiation dose and mortality due to solid cancers in INWORKS, with follow-up extended by 10 or more years in each country,” state the authors of the new study.

The researchers attempted to estimate the risk of death from solid cancers based on workers’ exposure to radiation 10 years previously and estimated that the risk increased by 52 percent for every gray (Gy) of radiation that workers had absorbed. Based on their results, the authors suggest that risk estimates based on acute exposures to an extremely high dose of radiation, such as those received by Japanese atomic bomb survivors, may underestimate the cancer risks from exposure to much lower doses of ionizing radiation delivered over a prolonged period in the workplace (specifically, in this study, that exposure is from external photon sources.)

The data showed a higher risk of death from solid cancers in analyses restricted to the low dose range (0-100 mGy) and to workers hired in the more recent years of operations, when recording techniques were more complete.

“This major update to INWORKS provides a direct estimate of the association between protracted low dose exposure to ionizing radiation and solid cancer mortality based on some of the world’s most informative cohorts of radiation workers. The summary estimate of excess relative rate solid cancer mortality per Gy is larger than estimates currently informing radiation protection, and some evidence suggests a steeper slope for the dose-response association in the low dose range than over the full dose range,” the researchers concluded in part, adding that “Our study does not find evidence of reduced risk per unit dose for solid cancer among workers typically exposed to radiation at low dose rates.”

Ongoing need for research: Shaheen Dewji, an ANS member and assistant professor in the Nuclear and Radiological Engineering and Medical Physics Programs at the Georgia Institute of Technology, is a member of the NASEM Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board. She told Nuclear News that the INWORKS results “are essentially not ‘out of the ballpark’ from what has been developed previously but provide a more focused dose-response model for low-dose radiation exposures, specifically from a controlled cohort study, specifically exposed to protracted low-dose radiation.”

Dewji, who was not involved in the new study, added that it “only focuses on one aspect of radiation exposure, which is solid cancer mortality,” and that “further research is also needed in the very-low-dose and low-dose-rate ranges (around <10 mGy) which become more comparable to background exposures we receive on a population basis.”

Amir Bahadori, an ANS member and associate professor in the Department of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering at Kansas State University, who like Dewji was not involved in the study, said, “The key for this and other cohort studies such as the Million Person Study is that the population members were mostly exposed occupationally at relatively low dose rates over years, making results more applicable to present-day occupational exposure situations than those from studies of the atomic bomb survivors. The results are broadly compatible with existing knowledge on radiation risks, considering the uncertainties associated with state-of-the-art analyses. The authors do a good job of highlighting study limitations, which in my opinion include the use of cumulative dose as the exposure metric and grouping all solid cancers as a single outcome.”

Dewji added, “While the INWORKS study is a key milestone in large-scale radiation epidemiology cohort studies, there is still much to investigate about the impacts of low-dose and low-dose-rate radiation, including from a plurality of radiation sources (external [neutron] and internalized radiation sources), confounding variables such as the effects of smoking or frequent medical procedures, measurement uncertainty and bias, and delineation of population-specific risk-response for cancer and non-cancer etiologies.

“Ongoing large-scale studies such as INWORKS further exemplify the need for ongoing research traversing radiation biology, dosimetry, and epidemiology to more holistically assess the impacts of exposure to low-dose radiation in our everyday lives. Such efforts are also critical to inform the radiological protection system.

“In the case of low-dose research, where there is still much to be learned,” Dewji continued, “we should be reminded of the wisdom of one of our most preeminent scientific pioneers in the study of radiation, Marie Curie: ‘Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less.’”

Questioning historical data: The new study may help researchers understand the impact that inaccurate early measurements of worker exposures might have had on low-dose radiation research and research protection. Personal dosimeter technology and monitoring practices have improved as the nuclear industry has matured. As a result, the study states, “Concerns have been expressed that errors in radiation dose estimates for workers employed in the early years of the industry’s operations could lead to biased estimates of radiation dose-cancer mortality associations.”

To address those concerns, the researchers analyzed a subset of the data including only workers hired “in more recent periods,” and found that “our overall results were not driven solely by information contributed by workers employed in the earliest years of the industry. To the contrary, after exclusion of workers hired in the earliest years of operations our estimate of the excess relative rate per Gy for solid cancer was larger than the estimate derived from analysis of the full cohort. . . . Among contemporary workers with presumably higher quality dosimetry information, the linear estimate of the radiation dose–solid cancer mortality association was larger than the overall summary estimate of association.”

The researchers did note an “important exception” in studies of higher dose exposures: A study of workers employed in plutonium production at the Soviet Union’s Mayak facilities, which reported a cancer rate “three to four times lower than the our [ sic ] INWORKS summary estimate and the summary estimate derived from the Life Span Study of the Japanese atomic bomb survivors.” The researchers note, “Given its size and the high magnitude of doses, the Mayak study exerted substantial influence on meta-analytic estimates of the excess relative rate for solid cancer per Gy that included higher dose studies. The reasons for differences between the Mayak study and INWORKS are unclear, but in the early years of operation at the Mayak facilities many workers were highly exposed with substantial uncertainty about their internal and external radiation doses.”

INWORKS data: According to a description published by the U.K. Health Security Agency, INWORKS is “an international epidemiological study on workers in the nuclear sector launched in 2011 and coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which combines data from nuclear workers in the U.K., U.S., and France for pooled analysis. It seeks to gain greater knowledge relating to the risks of cancer and noncancerous diseases linked to chronic exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation at low dose rates.”

The INWORKS data pool includes 309,932 nuclear industry workers (including 40,455 women) for whom individual ionizing radiation monitoring data were collected in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Data were collected for some of the workers as early as 1944; the latest updates were added to the INWORKS data pool in 2016. During the monitoring period (1944–2016), 103,553 workers died, and 28,089 of these deaths were attributed to solid cancers, described in the study as including most cancers other than leukemia. Information about cause of death was obtained from death certificates.

The U.S. cohort included 101,363 workers employed at the DOE’s Hanford Site, Savannah River Site, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and Idaho National Laboratory, and from the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.

Related Articles

How is Cold War–era radiation shaping the nuclear conversation today?

The Manhattan Project may have begun more than 80 years ago, but it’s still in the news—and not just because of Oppenheimer’s recent haul at the Academy Awards. On March 7, the Senate...

Federal appropriations bills include $212 million hike in nuclear funding

New appropriations bills currently under review in the U.S. Congress include a significant funding boost for nuclear energy.This week, ranking members of both the U.S. House and Senate...

Cancer-resistant genes in wolf population at Chernobyl?

The thriving gray wolf population in the Chernobyl exclusion zone (CEZ) has been the subject of recent media interest. While some sensationalist reports have referred to “mutant wolves”...

Cloud chamber kits show radiation in action for K-12 students

American Nuclear Society conferences always showcase the latest in nuclear, but one of the biggest attractions at this past November’s Winter Conference and Expo in Washington, D.C., was...

Issues on microreactors and irradiation experiments planned for ANS's Nuclear Science and Engineering

Two teams of guest editors from Idaho National Laboratory have announced plans for special issues of the American Nuclear Society's Nuclear Science and Engineering, the nuclear community’s...

Laying the foundation for advanced reactors

Climate change presents a grave threat, demanding increasing reliance on low-carbon energy over the coming decades. Nuclear power today contributes half of U.S. low-carbon generation, and...

American Nuclear Society supports water release at Fukushima Daiichi

Treated water is safer than world standards, essential for decommissioning

Washington, D.C. – The American Nuclear Society (ANS) supports the start of Japan’s controlled release of re-treated, diluted tritium wastewater into the sea from the Fukushima Daiichi...

National Academies report focuses on Hanford cleanup

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) recently held a public meeting to discuss its third and final report centered on the Department of Energy’s Office of...

Renewed effort on Radiation Exposure Compensation Act

Bipartisan legislation has been reintroduced in Congress to strengthen the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA), improving compensation for people who were exposed to radiation as a...

ANS Annual Meeting: Focus on the merits of advanced nuclear fuel cycles

Advanced reactors may be key to a clean energy future, but to prove it they’re going to need fuel—and that fuel will be derived from limited uranium resources and managed throughout the...

Scientific and practical aspects of a radiation inspection for a decommissioned NPP unit

• Published: 21 December 2023
• Volume 134 , pages 95–102, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• A. S. Gryaznov 1 ,
• E. A. Ivanov 1 ,
• A. S. Korotkov 1 ,
• S. S. Selkin 1 ,
• L. E. Sukhikh 1 &
• D. A. Sharov 1  

Explore all metrics

In connection with NPP service life requirements, an assessment of the radiation states of power units prior to their decommissioning becomes relevant. According to the regulatory documents, for these purposes, a comprehensive inspection of the unit should be carried out, whose results are used to assess the radiation impact on personnel during decommissioning, justifying and selecting the methods of decontamination, dismantling, and territorial reclamation, as well as to determine the volume of generated radioactive wastes. The radiation inspection of the first two units at the Leningrad NPP produced an adequate amount of initial data for the development of the decommissioning project. However, at the same time, it demonstrated the presence of significant difficulties associated with the lack of comprehensive requirements for the scope of instrumental and calculation works, inspection methods, as well as the analysis and processing of measurement and calculation results. In order to solve these problems, it is proposed to develop a standard methodology for the radiation inspection of decommissioned NPP units taking into account the experience gained at the Leningrad NPP.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Safety Assessment for Decommissioning Worker

Radiological Consequences and Risk Analysis for On-Site Workers During PSA Fault Sequences

Nuclear radiation doses monitoring of east’s environment.

GuangZhu Liu, LiQun Hu, … Neng Pu

Safety Regulations in Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities. General Provisions (NP-091-14). Federal Rules and Regulations in the Field of Using Nuclear Energy [In Russian], FBU “Scientific and Engineering Centre for Nuclear and Radiation Safety” Moscow (2014).

General Safety Assurance Provisions for Nuclear Power Plants (NP-001-15). Federal Rules and Regulations in the Field of Using Nuclear Energy [In Russian], FBU “Scientific and Engineering Centre for Nuclear and Radiation Safety” Moscow (2015).

Safety Rules for Decommissioning of a Nuclear Power Plant Unit (NP-012-16). Federal Rules and Regulations in the Field of Using Nuclear Energy [In Russian], FBU “Scientific and Engineering Centre for Nuclear and Radiation Safety” Moscow (2017).

Structure and Content of the Report on the Results of a Comprehensive Engineering and Radiation Inspection for the Decommissioning of a Nuclear Power Plant Unit (RB-081-13). Safety Guide for the Use of Nuclear Energy [In Russian], FBU “Scientific and Engineering Centre for Nuclear and Radiation Safety” Moscow (2013).

Radiation Safety Codes (NRB-99/2009). Sanitary Rules and Regulations SanPiN 2.6.1.2523-09 [In Russian], Federal Center for Hygiene and Epidemiology of Rospotrebnadzor, Moscow (2009).

Rossiiskii institut standartizatsii: Radioactive Wastes of Nuclear Power Plants. Determination of Radiation Characteristics for the Transfer to a Disposal. GOST R 59968-2021 [In Russian], Russian Standartization Institute, Moscow (2022).

Google Scholar  

Attestation Passport of a MCU-RBMK Software with MDB650 Data Bank (with a KDMK Initial Data Preparation Channel) [In Russian], reg. No. 430, dated 02/27/2018.

Leppänen, J., Pusa, M., Vitanen, T.: The Serpent Monte Carlo code: status, development and applications in 2013. Ann Nucl Energy 82 , (2015)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

JSC “VNIIAES”, Moscow, Russian Federation

A. S. Gryaznov, E. A. Ivanov, A. S. Korotkov, S. S. Selkin, L. E. Sukhikh & D. A. Sharov

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. S. Korotkov .

Additional information

Translated from Atomnaya Energiya , Vol. 134, No. 1–2, pp. 71–77, January–February, 2023.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Original article submitted February 10, 2023.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Gryaznov, A.S., Ivanov, E.A., Korotkov, A.S. et al. Scientific and practical aspects of a radiation inspection for a decommissioned NPP unit. At Energy 134 , 95–102 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10512-023-01032-0

Download citation

Published : 21 December 2023

Issue Date : May 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10512-023-01032-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Funding accelerates R&D and supports workforce development in essential STEM fields

WASHINGTON, D.C. —  The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today announced more than $19.1 million to support nuclear energy research and development, university nuclear infrastructure, and undergraduate and graduate education. Projects will help expand access to nuclear energy, moving the nation closer to meeting the Biden-Harris Administration’s goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. 

"U.S. universities and colleges are critical incubators of groundbreaking ideas that can move us toward a clean energy future,” said Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dr. Kathryn Huff . "These awards invest in the next generation of nuclear scientists and engineers who will continue to advance nuclear energy as a solution to tackling the climate crisis."

Since 2009, DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy has awarded almost $1 billion to advance nuclear energy research and support the education and training of future nuclear energy visionaries and leaders. Awards being announced today include: 

Distinguished Early Career Program ($2.5 million) - Invests in the innovative research and education programs of four outstanding early career university faculty poised to pave new lines of inquiry and advance mission critical research directions in nuclear energy.

University Nuclear Leadership Program ($6.6 million) - Provides scholarships and graduate fellowships to students pursuing nuclear engineering and other degree programs relevant to nuclear energy. The awards include 93 scholarships and 34 fellowships for students at 42 U.S. trade schools, colleges and universities. 

The Innovations in Nuclear Energy Research Development Student Competition ($34,500) - Recognizes 11 graduate and undergraduate students for their innovative nuclear energy research publications. 

Consolidated Innovative Nuclear Research (CINR) Phase II Research and Development ($4.7 Million) - Six awards enable established teams to extend and build upon previously funded nuclear energy research and development projects.

Scientific Infrastructure Support for CINR ($5.2 Million) - 18 awards will assist universities with acquiring the best resources and equipment available to educate the next generation of nuclear energy leaders.   

To learn more about these awards, visit the Nuclear Energy University Program website. CINR R&D awards will be announced later this spring. 

Media Inquiries: (202)-586-4940 | [email protected]

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Environ Res Public Health

Emerging Environmental Justice Issues in Nuclear Power and Radioactive Contamination

1 Department of Sociology and Anthropology, the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Edinburg, TX 78539, USA

2 School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA; [email protected]

Nuclear hazards, linked to both U.S. weapons programs and civilian nuclear power, pose substantial environment justice issues. Nuclear power plant (NPP) reactors produce low-level ionizing radiation, high level nuclear waste, and are subject to catastrophic contamination events. Justice concerns include plant locations and the large potentially exposed populations, as well as issues in siting, nuclear safety, and barriers to public participation. Other justice issues relate to extensive contamination in the U.S. nuclear weapons complex, and the mining and processing industries that have supported it. To approach the topic, first we discuss distributional justice issues of NPP sites in the U.S. and related procedural injustices in siting, operation, and emergency preparedness. Then we discuss justice concerns involving the U.S. nuclear weapons complex and the ways that uranium mining, processing, and weapons development have affected those living downwind, including a substantial American Indian population. Next we examine the problem of high-level nuclear waste and the risk implications of the lack of secure long-term storage. The handling and deposition of toxic nuclear wastes pose new transgenerational justice issues of unprecedented duration, in comparison to any other industry. Finally, we discuss the persistent risks of nuclear technologies and renewable energy alternatives.

1. Introduction

Nuclear technologies, both from military and commercial applications, pose a complex of environmental justice issues in terms of current and future risks they pose to people and environments. These risks, as both nuclear testing and nuclear reactor accidents have shown, transcend national boundaries, can span millennia, and can have multigenerational health risks. To explore nuclear risks and environmental justice, we focus on issues only in the continental U.S. However, we recognize that the risks are expanding at a global level with accumulations of high-level nuclear waste, mining and milling waste, and unresolved serious nuclear contamination problems at military sites in North America, Europe, Africa, and Asia (see [ 1 ]).

Weapons programs and nuclear power generation involve a complex nuclear fuel cycle, from mining and milling of the ore, to enrichment and nuclear fuel rod or warhead fabrication, leaving at the end of the cycle extremely toxic high-level nuclear waste that must be isolated from humans for hundreds of thousands of years [ 2 ]. This complex and geographically dispersed fuel cycle instantiates multiple exposure pathways, persistent risks, and growing questions about safety over time-spans beyond any human experience. While the more than 900 nuclear detonations in the continental U.S. alone have amply demonstrated the massive destructive power and toxic fallout potential of nuclear weapons, commercial nuclear power has also proved repeatedly to lack the “absolute safety” guaranteed by industry proponents (see [ 3 ]). As a series of catastrophic reactor accidents has shown, the commercial uses of nuclear fission materials to generate electricity are not without potentially severe multiscale risks. (Our discussion focuses solely on commercial reactors. There are dozens of research reactors in the U.S., both in federal nuclear research facilities and at other locations. Research reactors have had notable and very serious contamination events although they are outside our purview in this paper (see [ 4 ]). This potential has been variously displayed at Chernobyl in Russia (1986), Three Mile Island (TMI) in U.S. (1979), and most recently at Fukushima in Japan (2011). Indeed, on the 30th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster (2016), no technology yet exists to handle the melted highly radioactive 2000-ton core of the failed reactor, a core that will be lethal to humans for thousands of years [ 5 ].

Beyond the catastrophic failures, even in routine operations, nuclear power plants (NPPs) are a source of low level ionizing radiation potentially affecting workers and those living in proximity to reactor sites, particularly children (for a review or research in the European context (see [ 6 ]). A growing concern of those critical of the U.S. nuclear industry is that the aging and deteriorating U.S. fleet of reactors may be at increased risk of leaks, unplanned releases, and other failures given that most are already operating beyond their original 40-year operational life [ 7 ]. When considering the environmental justice implications of nuclear technologies it is critical to focus on the entire cycle from ‘cradle to grave’ of nuclear materials and technologies as this calls attention to the full spatial and temporal expressions of the nuclear hazardscape, something proponents fail to do when touting the putative zero carbon emissions of NPPs.

The toxic legacies of the global nuclear weapons complex—from uranium mining and milling, to weapons production and testing—have been global in reach, from Kyrgyzstan to the Marshall Islands to the Navajo Nation and Alaska [ 1 , 8 ]. Radioactive contamination of civilian populations in the U.S. (and globally) began with above-ground nuclear weapons tests at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) in 1951 producing the first “downwinders”—unprotected civilian populations exposed to nuclear fallout [ 9 ]. (Prior to surface testing in the U.S., there was an extensive testing program in the U.S. Marshall Islands, and thousands of Pacific Islanders were displaced and suffered radiation exposure (see [ 1 ]). Entire islands were vaporized by hydrogen bombs and islanders, decades later, remain displaced from home islands too contaminated to occupy. Today, those living near contaminated sites making up the U.S. weapons complex continue to be exposed to environmental health risks relating to radiation and related chemical contaminants [ 10 ]. The fact that many of those exposed to U.S. (and international) nuclear weapons production and testing are colonized indigenous groups and racialized minorities, raises clear environmental justice concerns [ 1 ]. The geographical scale and costs of the U.S. nuclear industrial complex exceeds virtually that of any other industrial sector (estimates place the total costs over 60 years of producing weapons grade materials, manufacturing, testing, maintaining, and decommissioning some 70,000 nuclear weapons at approximately $7.5 trillion as of 2005 (p. 47 [ 11 ]). The weapons complex also occupies (and contaminates) 36,000 square miles of the U.S., much of it federal sites on public lands in proximity to Indian reservations and other population centers [ 12 ].

To approach the topic, our discussion is organized into four sections. First we examine distributive and procedural justice issues at commercial reactors in the U.S. Our concern here is to examine the nature of the at-risk populations living in proximity to civilian nuclear power plants in the U.S. and discuss some of the environmental risks and procedural justice issues that pertain to nuclear plant siting, license renewal decision-making, and emergency preparedness. We highlight the growing constraints by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in public participation in nuclear decision-making, which appear to reinforce a tradition of secrecy, denial, and misinformation that has long been part of the nuclear industrial complex [ 1 , 13 ]. The second part of this paper addresses Cold War radiation exposure legacies and their environmental justice implications. We discuss the diverse pathways of radiation exposure for residents of Western states as a result of nuclear weapons testing fallout and from exposure to the extensive mining, milling, and weapons manufacturing processes that have contaminated communities across the American West [ 14 ]. In the next section, to illustrate the persistent risks of nuclear weapons production, we briefly discuss two federal nuclear weapons centers—Los Alamos, NM and Hanford, WA—as exemplars of the complex problems in handling nuclear waste and in reducing risks to surrounding communities.

The fourth section of the paper discusses the issue of safe disposal of high-level nuclear waste from power plants and weapons production. As of this writing no geologic burial site is open and operational that can provide secure storage of nuclear waste in the U.S. Further, there is a great deal of citizen opposition to the transportation of highly radioactive waste through cities and towns to secure storage sites should they become available in the future [ 15 , 16 , 17 ]. We conclude the paper with a discussion of persistent safety and environmental health issues in the nuclear complex and briefly discuss alternative energy sources for reducing nuclear risks and enhancing long-term environmental sustainability and justice.

2. Environmental Justice Issues in Commercial Nuclear Power

When discussing environmental justice issues we are concerned with three key forms of justice. The first, distributive justice, refers to how environmental burdens are sociospatially distributed, and what principles are used in allocating risks [ 18 ]. The second is procedural justice; that is, how equitable or inequitable the processes are whereby decisions are made regarding the impositions of environmental risks on people and places [ 2 ]. Lastly, recognition justice concerns who is or is not recognized as worthy of inclusion in decision-making regarding the allocation of hazard burdens. This is particularly salient in looking at nuclear injustice in American Indian communities, where native lands were declared “wastelands” by the military, thus failing to recognize people who have occupied landscapes for millennia [ 19 ].

We begin by considering distributive justice issues in U.S. NPPs. In general, individuals living around nuclear power plants face potential health risks posed by complex nuclear technologies. There are two categories of risks: those stemming from day-to-day operations and those arising from catastrophic failures. In case of acute failures, large areas around the nuclear plants face potential exposure to highly toxic radioactive releases, soil and water contamination, radiation from melted fuels, and large exclusion zones of uninhabitable land (as in both Chernobyl and Fukushima). The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in 2011 is the most recent reminder that nuclear power plants are subject to catastrophic failures with the potential to produce radiation-related diseases, as well displace hundreds of thousands of people and render large areas contaminated for centuries. And while these extreme events are relatively infrequent, when they occur multiple generations will be burdened with the environmental and health costs of these disasters, as Chernobyl has amply demonstrated (see [ 20 ]).

Reactors pose environmental and health risks even during routine operation in the form of low level radioactive emissions from a variety of sources [ 21 ]. Further, with the U.S. commercial nuclear reactor aging, concerns exist that the likelihood of cooling system leaks, contamination events, plant fires, and other “normal accidents” could increase in frequency with aging and degrading plant infrastructure [ 7 , 22 ]. Individuals living near nuclear power plants are potentially exposed to various sources of ionizing radiation. Every reactor releases radioactive gases that are routinely vented through stacks in the reactor roof and from the steam generators; every hour about 100 cubic feet of radioactive gases are released; purging of radioactive materials in pipes is conducted frequently (22 purges per year are allowed per reactor); discharging radioactive water into surrounding areas when it is too hazardous for plant workers to handle; using 20,000 gallons of water for cooling the reactor core every minute, with the cooling water becoming contaminated by radioactive tritium (tritiated water). Of this, 5000 gallons of tritiated water per minute are released into adjacent lakes, rivers, or the ocean, and an additional 15,000 gallons are vented into the atmosphere as steam [ 20 ]. (The potential health effects of exposure to radionuclides include (1) tritium or tritiated water becoming a part of bodily fluids within one or two hours of exposure; (2) plutonium-23 causing blood cancers such as lymphoma or leukemia; (3) iodine-131 which is quickly absorbed by the thyroid causing thyroid cancer; (4) strontium-90 which the body treats like calcium staying in the breast causing breast cancer; (5) Cesium-137 which is absorbed by muscle cells causing cancer; and (6) radioactive noble gases causing mutations in eggs and sperm [ 23 ]).

The World Nuclear Association claimed that it is difficult to detect the cancer in the individuals who are exposed to less than 100 mSv [ 24 ]. The U.S. NRC has also claimed that biological effects from exposure to low level radiation are small and may not be detectable [ 25 ]. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provided guidelines to evacuate or remain in shelter when the radiation dose reaches between 1 and 5 rems (10 mSv to 50 mSv) projected dose over four days in the early stage of nuclear power accident [ 26 ]. Nevertheless, in the past 30 years, scientists in Europe and the USA have repeatedly studied and confirmed that normal operation of reactors causes cancer, especially in children [ 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 ]. The radiation releases during the Fukushima, Chernobyl, and TMI accidents were much higher than permitted releases during normal operation [ 27 ]. Further, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences claims that there is no safe dose of ionizing radiation and even normal background radiation can cause cancer [ 47 , 48 ].

Given a host of routine radiation risks that plants pose, in this section we discuss the ways that communities near nuclear power plants face environmental injustice issues from the disproportionate risk burdens they bear. To better understand these environmental justice issues, we examine NPP host communities from both distributive and procedural justice perspectives, examining locational and proximity issues as they relate to plant siting decisions, emergency preparedness, and public participation in nuclear energy decision-making.

2.1. Distributive Justice—Locational and Proximity Issues

In this section we compare populations living within a 50-mile radius of plant sites to the population residing beyond that perimeter for all operating plants in the U.S. The 50-mile radius conforms to the NRC’s Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) Ingestion Pathway, the outer geographic limit of NRC planning for nuclear contamination events. Kyne [ 49 ] conducted a study of distributive justice based on 104 reactors at 65 sites. In this study, using the same dataset (namely the U.S. Census 2010/American Community Survey, 5-year estimate) [ 50 ] and adopting the same methodology (see [ 49 ]), we estimated distribute justice around the current 99 operational reactors at 61 sites in 31 states. Six reactors have been shuttered for various reasons since Kyne’s previous study. The dataset that results from each respective survey include racial and ethnic subgroups, white-alone, Hispanic-alone, American Indian- or Alaskan Native-alone, Asian-alone, black or African American-alone, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander-alone and Other-alone—as well as one additional category, “Two or more races”, that is included only in the 2010 dataset. Based on the most recent census, there were approximately 87.5 million people living within a 50-mile radius of plants ( Table 1 , Figure 1 ). Looking at each racial and ethnic group, the total population was 71% white, while 36.32% were in the “Color” category. Approximately four percent more whites reside outside EPZs than inside communities than reside inside (75% vs. 71%). In contrast, a larger percentage of African Americans live within the 50-mile zone than reside outside it (17% vs. 10%) as shown in Table 1 . In contrast to African Americans, fewer Hispanics are found in the host communities than outside (13.2% vs. 16%). Similar findings are observed for other racial groups as shown in Table 1 . While these differences are relatively small compared to asymmetries noted in other hazardous sites, the larger issue is potential exposure to a very large numbers of residents in the case of a catastrophic failure.

Demographic Composition of Percent white and color according to area, sorted by distance from any one of the 61 commercial NPPs, based on 2010 American Community Survey data.

Demographic composition according to area, sorted by distance from any one of the 61 commercial NPPs, based on 2010 American Community Survey data.

To examine potential exposure of an urban population to a highly toxic radioactive plume from a reactor core breach, we use the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) near Phoenix as an example. The reactor complex lies approximately 50 miles west and upwind of central Phoenix. Using NRC software to model the dispersion of a radioactive plume, using typical early spring wind conditions, we found 700,000 residents would be exposed out of the 4 million population in the metropolitan Phoenix area (typifying weather conditions in January and March include prevailing wind direction of west-northwest, at a speed of 6.2 miles/h) [ 51 ]. The estimated exposed population could have been even larger, but the NRC software used to model the dispersion plume is limited to a 100-mile dispersal zone (the simulation utilized the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Radiological Assessment System for Consequence Analysis (RASCAL) Source Term to Dose (STDose) software to project the plume pathway and radiation dose). By comparison, the Indian Point New York generating station lies within 25 miles of New York City, the most populous city in the U.S. Here a failure could generate cleanup costs of $1 trillion in the event of a core meltdown [ 52 ].

Evidence suggests that individuals living near the nuclear power plants face difficult-to-avoid health risks associated with exposure to low level routine radioactive effluents emitted from plants. Given that no level of radiation exposure is considered safe, any excess exposure could have deleterious impacts on human health [ 6 ]. The effects of radiation at the cellular level could lead to irreversible damage and potential premature death. Tritium, to highlight a common isotope, is a carcinogen, mutagen, and teratogen and can easily be incorporated into human tissues causing cancers, chromosomal aberrations, birth defects and miscarriages, and mental retardation after in utero exposure [ 6 ]. We observed that among the estimated 87.5 million people living within a 50-mile radius of a NPP ( Table 1 ), 5.6 million (6.4%) are children under the age of five years. Children have been found to be particularly vulnerable to radiation exposure as European studies on leukemia have found. A study in Germany reported that the children under five years of age living within a 5 km (3.1 miles) are 2.19 times more likely to develop leukemia [ 53 ] than those outside this zone. And while such findings are still debated (e.g., [ 54 ]) many are strongly convinced by the evidence (e.g., [ 55 ]).

2.2. Procedural Justice Issues—Plant Siting, Emergency Preparedness, Public Participation, and Nuclear Energy Ethics

In addition to the 50 mile EPZ, the NRC also designates a plume exposure pathway zone within a 10-mile radius of a reactor [ 56 ]. While the large numbers of people residing within the 50-mile EPZ raises obvious hazard exposure and distributional justice issues, and procedural justice issues also confront adjacent communities. Key procedural justice issues include the nuclear power plant site selection process, emergency preparedness capabilities, and public participation in nuclear power plant license renewal procedures.

Plant siting: The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) acted as a sole responsible authority for the site selection process in the beginning years of civilian nuclear power (1957–1975) [ 57 ]. Under the AEC’s guidelines there were three key siting criteria—an exclusion area, a low-population zone, and distance to major population centers [ 49 , 57 ]. The exclusion area was a circular zone of a size defined by the licensee, which was in turn surrounded by a low-population zone. Residential land use was not permitted in the exclusion area, and the adjacent low-population zone was to have a population of a size that could easily be evacuated in the event of a serious accident [ 57 ]. The AEC guidelines were ambiguous at best, lacking any specification of the exclusion area radius, no quantified limit on the population size for the low-population zone, and a lack of a quantified population size to be used to define the nearest densely populated area. The three key terms lacked clarity and specificity in the AEC’s siting decision-making [ 49 , 57 ]. Given that the EJ movement was years in the future, the AEC’s site selection and licensing decision-making also lacked any consideration of social equity in plant location.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission was created by the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, replacing the much criticized AEC [ 58 ]. The act authorized the NRC to be the sole authority for the licensing of all US nuclear power reactors, for both construction and operating license applications, in a two-step process [ 49 , 59 ]. According to existing law, mandatory public hearings are scheduled in the licensing process, in which the public could raise their concerns and issues related to the plant’s design and construction activities that could negatively impact their health [ 49 , 60 ]. However, by the time the NRC was created, 81 out of the current 99 nuclear reactors had already been licensed for construction, meaning the effects of public participation would at best be limited to new plants [ 61 ]. The agency reorganized the two step licensing process into a single step in 1992, which combined the construction and licensing processes [ 60 ]. The single step process has been criticized for discouraging public participation by reducing the number of public hearing meetings and imposing the requirement for legitimate contentions for public hearings normally adjudicated by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB). This consists of a three-judge panel of NRC employees, made up of two technical experts and one attorney [ 49 , 60 ]. A limited window of 60 days to contest licensing and construction and high costs (an estimated costs of between $100,000 and $500,000 for a given case) associated with attorney and nuclear expert fees limit the public’s ability to intervene in the process [ 49 , 60 ]. At a time when environmental justice activism has been demanding a greater role for public participation in environmental decision-making, the NRC has acted to further constrain public involvement.

Emergency preparedness: Critical in insuring public safety in the event of a nuclear disaster is robust emergency planning and a coherent response strategy by the reactor operator and the state. As the Fukushima Daiichi disaster has recently showed, the lack of emergency preparedness by the commercial plant operator, inadequate communication pathways, and various dysfunctions among government agencies can move a nuclear disaster rapidly toward a worst case scenario [ 3 ]. When there is an emergency at a nuclear power plant, any call for evacuation requires a long complex procedure, one that is unrealistic in the face of what actually transpires in a nuclear emergency. For an evacuation order to be issued, a computer model has to be run projecting a fallout path, protective actions have to be recommended by state authorities, and then an evacuation order issued. According to NRC [ 62 ], an extraordinarily unrealistic 15-min time frame is provided for this complex assessment process and transmitting an evacuation recommendation from the power plant operator to the state authorities [ 51 ]. There is good evidence that nuclear plant safety and security needs substantial improvement in the U.S. and that preparedness is weak for handling a nuclear emergency, particularly a rapidly evolving one that involves a cascade of reactor failures such as Fukushima (see [ 3 ]).

Public participation : While public participation and the right to know has been a hallmark of the environmental justice (EJ) and anti-toxics movements, much of the nuclear industry has been shrouded in secrecy and public exclusion [ 13 , 63 ]. Based on the Atomic Energy Act, the NRC has been authorized to issue licenses to NPPs to operate up to 40 years and allows plants to be renewed for another 20 years [ 64 ]. On paper, the general public is encouraged to participate in the NRC decision-making process through public meetings, and public comment periods on rules, renewal guidance, and other documents [ 65 ]. Nevertheless, 97 out of 99 U.S. commercial nuclear power reactors have had their licenses renewed for another 20 years [ 61 ], which suggests that most renewals are pro forma given the substantially different ages of plants and their operational histories [ 7 ].

According to Executive Order (E.O.) 12898, issued in 1994 [ 66 ], federal agencies are mandated to identify and address adverse human health and environmental impacts on minority and low-income populations. However, it is not mandatory for independent federal agencies such as NRC. The NRC has stated that the agency has voluntarily committed to undertake environmental justice assessments during the mandated supplemental environmental impact assessments (SEIS) for license renewal [ 67 ]. In the SEIS, a number of factors are evaluated including air quality, water use, ecosystem effects, and various health and socioeconomic issues. For example, in the case of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Arizona (PVNGS) license renewal process, there were more than 90 separate issues considered. It is at the NRC’s discretion to decide how significant each of the issues are, and not surprisingly 76 percent were labeled as being of ‘small’ significance. Notably, human health and environmental justice were labeled as ‘uncertain,’ meaning no action was taken on them in the absence of adequate information.

The license renewal procedure touches on the issue of procedural justice specifically as it relates to public participation. In this case the license renewal process began on 15 December 2008 when the PVNGS submitted the application and it ended on 22 April 2011 when a decision was reached. While the process took about 44 months, the public had only two opportunities for involvement, once in 2009 and again in 2010. The NRC announced the public meetings in the Federal Register [ 67 ] 30 days before the meeting and as a result public participation was marginal. Out of a potentially affected population of 690,000 (in the 50-mile EPZ), 12 citizens provided comments. Further, the NRC, acting as a promoter of nuclear power, rebutted public comments about negative environmental impacts and dangers of aging reactors. The long troubled nuclear plant which has been under the scrutiny of the NRC due to some significant structural issues was nevertheless granted an extension of 20 years on its license rather than being closed due to safety concerns.

Nuclear energy ethics : The three ethical aspects related to nuclear power are risk, justice, and democracy [ 68 ]. To elaborate nuclear energy ethics, a case study of Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station license renewal is relevant here [ 69 ]. The plant renewal process took six years, in contrast to the more typical two and a half years. This protracted license renewal process was due to the operator’s failure to include the community in the decision-making process [ 69 ]. This exclusion led to a law suit against the plant operators delaying licensing further. The failure to incorporate public participation is a clear violation of procedural justice norms. In so doing it also clearly fails to fairly distribute the risks and benefits by consulting those affected, thus raising concerns about distributive justice [ 69 ]. In addition, the operator’s failure to conduct risk assessment, risk management, risk decision-making, and risk distribution studies in accordance with best practices and principles of procedural and distributive justice it also necessarily violates the ethical obligations of nuclear energy [ 69 ]. It is obvious that as long as the authorities involved in regulating nuclear energy do not demonstrate their accountability and ethical responsibilities to public well-being, the problems of distributive justice and procedural justice will not be adequately addressed.

The overall evidence is that, in absence of clear indications of harm from low level radiation, the NRC ostensibly will renew licenses for existing nuclear power plants in operation. Given the absence of large scale epidemiological studies of populations within the 50-mile EPZ of U.S. reactors, there is little to stand in the way of near automatic license renewals of aging plants. Nevertheless, evidence from a series of European studies suggest that elevated childhood leukemia rates, among other diseases, are associated with proximity to reactor sites [ 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 48 , 70 , 71 ]. No such systematic studies have been conducted in the U.S.

3. Environmental Justice Issues in Nuclear Weapons Industrial Complex

While the commercial nuclear power program emerged out of the U.S. nuclear weapons program in the 1950s, the environmental health impacts of radioactive contamination in the U.S. date to the Manhattan Project, the accelerated federal program to build nuclear weapons in WWII. For the Manhattan Project and the subsequent large-scale program to build increasingly powerful and sophisticated nuclear weapons, the legacies of contamination are extensive, continuing, and difficult to remediate (e.g., [ 72 ]) In this section we extend our analysis of the environmental justice issues in nuclear technologies by examining landscape-scale radiation contamination as a result of nuclear weapons production and testing. We begin with a discussion of the health effects of several decades of uranium mining and milling on the Navajo nation. All contamination and nuclear waste issues discussed here involve transgenerational justice issues as some radioactive isotopes can remain lethal for tens of thousands of years and point to the substantial difficulties of being able to determine whether remediated federal weapons sites and waste deposition facilities will remain safe for millennia and not harm future generations [ 17 , 27 ]. The effects of uranium mining on the Navajo nation closely resemble the effects of uranium mining on local communities in other so-called third and fourth worlds [ 73 ]. While Navajo uranium supported the U.S. weapons program in the 1950s and 1960s, U.S. NPPs purchased 90% of their uranium from other countries including Canada, Australia, Russia, Kazakhstan, Namibia, and other countries in 2010 [ 74 ]. This demonstrates that maintaining nuclear power in the U.S. also concerns international justice issues.

3.1. Uranium Mining in Indian Country

The “uranium frenzy” began in the West in the 1940s as the U.S. ramped up its capacity to produce nuclear weapons providing a ready market for uranium ore [ 75 ]. While many sites on the Colorado Plateau were mined, the Navajo Nation—covering some 27,000 sq. mi. of Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico—became a center for mining and ore processing (milling). From 1944 to the 1980s uranium miners on the reservation produced more than 4 million tons of ore purchased by the federal government to use in the nuclear weapons program [ 76 ]. The exploitation of tribal resources and land for the U.S. weapons programs can be seen as a form of “nuclear colonialism”, wherein thousands of tribal members (and others) have been exposed to radiation in mines, nuclear fallout from weapons tests in Nevada, and have had their food and water resources contaminated by fallout and mining wastes, all with documented health effects [ 14 , 77 ]. By the 1980s when the demand for uranium declined, mines across the Navajo Nation were shut without remediation, leaving more than 500 known contaminated mine and mill tailing sites (and possibly hundreds more), poisoning communities, contaminating water, and strongly implicated in ongoing illness and disease among tribal members [ 77 ]. As a Navajo birth cohort study has recently shown, 27 percent of those tested had high levels of uranium in their urine, now more than 30–50 years after mines were closed [ 78 ]. That decades passed before the EPA began site remediation of mines and the clean-up of areas around homes speaks to the marginality of American Indians in federal environmental remediation efforts. Similarly, federal compensation for the health effects of uranium mining, nuclear testing, and community exposure only began in 1990, 45 years after the first nuclear explosion [ 10 ]. The federal government’s long delays in admission of harms done and reluctance to offer compensation is a common feature of nuclear injustices [ 13 ].

While uranium mining provided a few thousand Navajo with comparatively well-paying jobs, the health costs for those exposed in the mines, as well as thousands of others exposed by mine site, mill tailing, and groundwater contamination have been and continue to be extensive. Lung cancers began being documented among Navajo mine workers by the 1960s, the likely result of radon gas exposure in the mines although miners were never informed of the known risks. Lung cancer was virtually unheard of among Navajo and other Indian tribes prior to the advent of uranium mining but today the rates remain four times as high for miners as non-miners [ 77 ] in spite of no active reservation mining for decades (uranium mining on the Navajo Nation was banned by the tribal government in 2005 in response to the enduring environmental and health effects of previous mining). The incidence of kidney disease and other health complications among Navajo today are elevated and linked to drinking uranium-contaminated groundwater and living near unremediated mine sites [ 77 ]. The remediation costs for such extensive contamination runs in the billions of dollars, although a recent settlement between the Department of Justice with the Kerr-McGee Corporation netted $1 billion for the Navajo Nation for mine site clean-up and compensation to those sickened by mining and milling operations [ 79 ].

The experiences of the Navajo and other Indian tribes with uranium mining and processing as well as weapons testing exposure has clear and continuing environmental justice implications. These center on two key things: (1) the disregard of Indian communities’ health and well-being by the military and mining companies; and (2) the long delays between initial exposures and subsequent hazard mitigation and federal compensation programs for radiation victims. The federal Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) did not become law until 1990, 30–50 years after exposures from nuclear testing and mining, and after passage it has proved difficult for downwind and mining victims to receive benefits for their illnesses [ 75 ].

3.2. Federal Nuclear Weapons Centers

The contaminated federal research centers at Los Alamos, NM and Hanford, WA (other federal nuclear labs and production sites with extensive contamination issues include Savannah River (GA), Y-12 at Oak Ridge (TN), Rocky Flats (CO)—now closed but with significant contamination issues remaining—Fernald nuclear materials site (OH), and Lawrence Livermore Lab (CA)). All are active, difficult-to-remediate superfund sites and are further examples of the environmental and health risks that have been created in the process of producing nuclear weapons for the U.S. arsenal. Unlike tribal lands, these federal sites and numerous others are part of the national security state. As such they have lacked public oversight and have been cloaked in secrecy for much of their history [ 13 ].

Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) has a storied history as the center of the Manhattan Project and the production of the first nuclear weapons to be used in war. Established in 1943, it has a longer history of nuclear research and radioactive contamination than any other site in the world. Located in northern New Mexico on the Pajarito Plateau, it occupies the former homeland of the San Ildefonso Pueblo, gifted to the Manhattan Project, with the understanding that the lands would be returned at the end of WWII [ 12 ]. LANL sits in the center of more than a dozen Pueblo nations and within 50 miles of other Indian reservations including the Navajo and Jicarilla Apache [ 14 ]. Covering more than 43 square miles of forested uplands, it also encompasses many cultural sites sacred to Pueblo people, sites whose access is denied due to security at the weapons complex.

As typical of other federal nuclear research labs, LANL today has multiple sites of contamination from radiologic and chemical substances. Also typical of other nuclear labs, it has a history of intentional nuclear materials releases that have affected downwind communities [ 80 ]. While worker exposure to both low and high level radiation releases has been documented (see [ 13 ]), LANL’s use of conventional explosives combined with radioactive tracers (radiolanthanum or RaLa) to assess fallout patterns was kept secret from residents in surrounding communities until AEC and Department of Energy (DOE) documents on human radiation experiments were ordered declassified in 1994. There is substantial evidence of radioactive fallout from the RaLa tests in the 1950s and 1960s drifting over several Pueblo nations and other population centers east of LANL with no warnings ever being issued [ 80 ]. These fallout plumes were monitored by the Air Force to study dispersion patterns in anticipation of future nuclear tests elsewhere. As Masco [ 12 ] writes, “… the long-term effects of explosive testing and nuclear waste storage on the mountain raise fundamental questions about the safety of Pueblo lived spaces (p. 138)”. As with the Navajo and uranium mining, elevated rates of cancers in Pueblos adjacent to Los Alamos inevitably raise questions about cause given the near absence of cancers prior to the opening of the lab (e.g., [ 81 ]). That downwind communities here weren’t considered important enough to warn of potential risks, speaks to issues in recognition and procedural injustice typical of the nuclear weapons program.

Among the legacies of 70 years of nuclear weapons research, testing, and production at LANL is an expanding nuclear dump site directly upstream/upwind of the San Ildefonso Pueblo and other communities. So-called Area G is a significant focus of concern both for Indian and Hispano communities in the area, and for anti-nuclear activists in New Mexico given the extensive store of highly radioactive materials and ongoing containment issues at LANL [ 12 ]. Clean-up here, as at other federal research sites, has been complicated by lack of federal funding and the lack of good records on what chemical contaminants and radioactive materials were dumped in pits prior to the 1980s [ 82 ]. Area G comprises LANL’s main dump site, now occupying 100 acres of mesa country adjacent to Pueblo lands: highly radioactive waste from decades of nuclear research and weapons fabrication, including plutonium-contaminated materials, is buried here. The site is nearing capacity, with 33 large burial pits, 220 deep shafts, and 4 trenches, the latter storing 7200 grams of weapons grade plutonium-239 in dry casks (p. 354 [ 12 ]). Above ground 16,000 barrels of radiation-contaminated liquid wastes await transportation to the Waste Isolation Pilot Project dump site in southern New Mexico (discussed below) [ 83 ].

Environmental health and justice concerns relate to the effects of possible exposure of downstream and downwind communities from leaks and airborne contamination at the site. Currently a tritium- and chromium-contaminated plume of groundwater is moving towards the San Ildefonso Pueblo from Area G, threatening to enter an aquifer that the Pueblo and other communities depend on for drinking water as well as for irrigation [ 84 ]. These risks are ongoing as are a litany of problems associated with clean-up of LANL’s multiple contamination sites. A DOE clean-up plan for LANL scheduled to be completed in December 2015 has substantially missed its deadline. Consistent with delays and cost overruns in other federal nuclear site clean-up programs (e.g., [ 85 ]) the lack of progress at LANL will see the program stretch out decades and costs escalate by billions of dollars [ 86 ]. Moreover, public endangerment remains in the absence of adequate site remediation by the DOE.

Another key site of the Manhattan Project, and one that poses perhaps even greater environmental safety and long-term health concerns for both surrounding communities and site workers, is the Hanford, WA site. The Hanford site covers 580 square miles of SE Washington, adjacent to a number of farming communities as well as 10 Indian reservations and is currently undergoing a very large scale site remediation process, estimated to ultimately cost $150 billion. Site clean-up has included removal of 20 tons of plutonium, debris from hundreds of irradiated structures, 2300 tons of spent nuclear fuel rods, thousands of tons of contaminated soil, and millions of gallons of highly contaminated waste water [ 85 ]. Hanford was a production center for weapons-grade plutonium for the Manhattan Project bombs and for the subsequent production of thousands of additional nuclear weapons. To that end, Hanford, until the 1980s, utilized nine nuclear reactors and other complex technologies to produce the plutonium cores for nuclear weapons. Doing so over its long operational life (1943–1988) has produced what is considered the single largest radiation and chemical contamination site in the Western Hemisphere [ 72 ]. The nine plutonium production reactors have been ‘cocooned,’ that is, encased in concrete, until the highly radioactive cores decay enough to be permanently disposed of sometime in the distant future [ 87 ]. While its role in the production of nuclear weapons has ceased, what remains at Hanford are multiple superfund sites of highly toxic wastes and a recent history of questionable success in containing and cleaning up the radiologic and chemical wastes [ 85 ].

Even while the plant was operating it had a dubious record of safety, with planned and unplanned releases of radioactive materials, accidents, worker exposures and radiation-related illnesses, as well as on-site dumping of radioactive liquids directly on the ground (450 billion gallons) creating numerous toxic groundwater plumes [ 72 ]. Evidence shows that residents in nearby communities have experienced persistent health issues ostensibly related to radioactive releases from the site over a period of decades, releases that were not announced nor warnings issued for [ 13 ]. Testimonies presented at public outreach meetings of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments (ACHRE) in the 1990s contain a litany of stories on birth defects, autoimmune disorders, cancers, premature deaths, and thyroid disorders by those living near Hanford [ 80 ].

Hanford and AEC personnel monitored thousands of school children near the site in the 1960s to assess radionuclide body burdens on residents, as well as to assess levels of radioactive contamination of farmlands and crops. This was not out of concern for residents’ health but for better understanding the dispersal and bioaccumulation of radioactive materials in the ambient environments around Hanford (and other federal labs) (pp. 453–455 [ 13 ]). The incidence of cancers and other radiation related illnesses in nearby farm communities was so pronounced that the area became known as the “Death Mile” [ 72 ]. In 1986, documents were released by Hanford showing a multi-decadal history of leaks, intentional releases, and accidents. Over its years of operation more than 25 million curies of radionuclides were secretly released into the air and water around Hanford, more than that released at the Three Mile Island partial meltdown disaster (p. 147 [ 88 ]).

The most pressing problem at Hanford is 56 million gallons of highly unstable chemically- and radioactively-contaminated waste water stored in large underground tanks. At least one million gallons of waste water has leaked out of the tanks and has entered the Columbia river [ 72 ]. Given that a number of tribes in the area are permitted by treaty to harvest fish in the river, radioactive and chemical contamination ingested through fish consumption is a significant health concern for local Indian nations [ 88 ]. The larger issue is that the clean-up of Hanford poses substantial risks of radiological and chemical contamination and the site cleanup has been plagued by delays, cost overruns, cover-ups, and law suits by former workers. Further, a recent report verifies that the new waste treatment plant design is deeply flawed and subject to potential explosions and the release of nuclear and chemical materials [ 89 ].

3.3. Disposing of High Level Radioactive Waste

According to U.S. NRC, high-level wastes include (1) spent (used) reactor fuel and (2) waste materials remaining after spent fuel is reprocessed [ 90 ]. The latter type of high-level wastes is generated by both military nuclear reprocessing programs and commercial reprocessing operations. It is necessary to include both these waste streams in any high-level radioactive waste disposal plans [ 90 ]. Given the growing volume of high-level wastes nationally, commercial nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons programs have a common need: sites for permanent and safe storage of highly radioactive military waste and spent fuel rods. For high-level nuclear waste, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act Amendments (NWPAA) of 1987 specified one site for deep geologic burial, Yucca Mountain at the Nevada Test Site [ 91 ]. The NWPAA eliminated all other sites from consideration, shifting the environmental burdens of thousands of tons of spent fuel rods and related waste on the state of Nevada and Indian nations in proximity to Yucca Mountain [ 14 , 17 , 91 ]. No eastern site was ever under consideration although the majority of nuclear power plants are east of the Mississippi, raising significant procedural and distributive justice issues [ 92 ]. That Nevada has no nuclear power plants and has already borne substantial environmental burdens from decades of nuclear testing and fallout, points to pronounced inequities in terms of environmental health burdens vs. benefits [ 91 ].

Since taking office in 2009, the Obama administration announced that Yucca Mountain was no longer the presumed solution to the nation’s radioactive waste problem and stopped funding the program [ 91 ], although it remains a federal mandate. As with other federal nuclear projects, site assessment studies for a deep burial site have been plagued by falsified documents, massive cost overruns in the multiple billions of dollars, and delays already on the order of decades [ 14 ]. With the defunding of Yucca Mountain, the U.S. is left with no specific site for permanent safe storage of high-level waste.

In an effort to keep Yucca Mountain alive in May 2016 U.S. NRC completed and issued an Environmental Impact Statement supplement. While completion of adjudicatory hearing is necessary before making a decision on licensing, the site still remains suspended [ 93 ]. In January 2010, a Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) was established by President Obama with a primary goal to develop a safe, long-term solution to managing the nation’s nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel other than Yucca Mountain [ 94 ]. Two years later, the BRC recommended consideration of eight key elements in their first report including the prompt development of one or more geologic disposal facilities and other consolidated storage facilities [ 94 ]. U.S. DOE is responsible for constructing permanent sites whereas U.S. NRC is the regulator for design and operation of the facilities [ 93 ]. In January 2013, the U.S. DOE developed a framework to implement the BRC’s recommendations in the next 10 years in their report, Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste [ 95 ]. The plan, which requires the consent of potentially impacted communities, includes constructing a pilot interim storage facility by 2021, and to advance toward the siting and licensing of a larger interim facility by 2025. It also includes plans for the site characterization of new repository sites to facilitate the availability of a geologic repository by 2048 [ 95 ]. The upshot is that even in this new plan the future of the permanent geologic repositories is still clouded with uncertainties at least for next three decades, while spent fuel rods continue to accumulate at commercial reactors.

These new plans notwithstanding, in the absence of a permanent site, highly radioactive spent fuel rods accumulate at commercial reactor sites, now estimated at around 70,000 tons [ 17 ]. On-site storage of plutonium-dense fuel rods in poorly secured commercial sites are a significant safety issue, given security concerns over terrorists acquiring nuclear materials to produce a “dirty bomb”—a device to spread nuclear contamination in a population center using conventional explosives. Indeed, recently the NRC has actually changed reactor security policies in such a way as to ostensibly reduce plant security against potential terrorist attacks (see [ 96 ]).

The second nuclear waste geologic burial site, the Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP) was opened in the 1990s and accepted military/research lab nuclear waste (transuranic waste), much of it coming from LANL’s Area G. (The WIPP site uses deep burial in hollowed out salt domes, and wastes are buried in stainless steel canisters. Over time the salt domes are expected to collapse entombing the waste.) The WIPP site was one of several sites evaluated in the 1970s that used hollowed out salt domes to store nuclear waste (other than fuel rods) underground. Concerns over water ingress and other issues delayed the opening of WIPP for more than two decades [ 92 ]. The WIPP site opened in the 1990s and began accepting waste from LANL, Hanford, and other federal sites in spite of strong state opposition [ 12 ]. However, after a period of relatively routine operation, in 2014 an improperly packed canister of radioactive waste from LANL caught fire underground, exposing workers to radiation and resulting in the venting of radioactive materials into the atmosphere (for information on the leak see [ 97 ]). It also revealed serious problems with how LANL was documenting and tracking radioactive waste to the site. With Yucca Mountain defunded and the WIPP closed pending extensive review of site safety and waste handling procedures, nuclear waste accumulates at reactor sites and clean-up at federal weapons sites is further delayed.

The primary concern of activists, tribes, and communities opposing these two sites is the sheer volume of nuclear waste that will traverse highways and railways through population centers in transit from nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons sites [ 12 ]. New DOE plans referenced above would still require the large scale movement of wastes through population centers. Given the recent history of oil train accidents in North America, legitimate concerns exist as to the environmental and human health consequences should a highway or rail accident result in the release of highly toxic radioactive material in a population center. While the DOE asserts that it is “impossible” for canisters containing highly radioactive materials to rupture, the recent fire and container breach at the WIPP site suggests otherwise. Currently, with no site open to accept high level or transuranic waste, nuclear waste transportation safety issues are temporarily reduced. Of course, Yucca mountain remains a federal mandate under the NWPAA, however ill-advised the location appears in site characterization studies [ 17 ]. The tail end of the nuclear fuel cycle—specifically permanent, safe burial—remains an unsolved technical problem, a deeply controversial political issue, and a significant transgenerational environmental justice concern.

4. Conclusions

This study has argued that nuclear power plants, uranium mining, and waste disposal raise a suite of justice issues including distributive, procedural, recognition and intergenerational justice issues. Moreover, these issues are transnational in scope and scale. In U.S., there are substantial uncertainties regarding the health effects of NPPs on the more than 87 million people residing within a 50-mile radius of a commercial reactor. These concerns are further complicated by the history of secrecy and the suppression of public participation in any nuclear decision-making by the NRC and DOE. Further, what participation is available is circumscribed by strict and self-serving procedural rules. Given the culture of the DOE and the NRC, and before it the AEC, there would appear a strong tendency of the promoters of nuclear energy to deny any potential health and environmental risks. Indeed, as discussed above, the lack of public discussion of emergency preparedness at NPPs illustrates this culture of minimizing risk and not raising public concerns or worries over the potential for accidents. The NRC has withheld nuclear power plant emergency plan documents systematically due to security concerns and has ignored comments by the public to improve plans. This same logic characterized the exposure of civilian populations to nuclear testing fallout: people were not informed of risks so as to not worry them [ 14 ]. Once radiation related diseases began in tribes and downwind communities after a two-decade latency, then a process of denial of responsibility by federal agencies ensued [ 9 ]. In a recent development, hundreds of U.S. sailors taking part in rescue efforts after the Fukushima’s accident have developed rare cancers, blindness, birth defects, and two deaths, leading to law suits against the Japanese nuclear power company [ 98 ].

Further procedural and recognition justice issues are associated with the nuclear weapons program and the sheer volumes of hazardous and poorly documented waste six decades of weapons production has produced at sites like LANL and Hanford. As weapons production is part of the national security state, it is highly secretive and public disclosures of risk typically come decades after exposures of civilian populations, if they come at all [ 13 ]. While federal programs like RECA belatedly became available for miners, downwind communities, and workers at federal weapons sites, the compensation has been typically limited, particularly in light of the long-term health care costs associated with diseases produced by radiation exposure [ 10 ]. Uranium mining has clearly related justice issues since it is not only workers who are exposed but their homes and communities also become contaminated [ 73 ]. That miners were never informed of the risks is further evidence of the disregard for the well-being of workers, often members of marginalized ethnic groups, by the nuclear industry. Of course, such experiences are not limited to North America: the experiences of uranium miners in African countries and other third world nations also illustrate the high environmental health costs and other international justice issues related to nuclear industries [ 73 , 74 ].

The continuing proliferation and operation of nuclear power plants globally and the waste they generate, constitutes substantial justice concerns for those living in proximity to nuclear sites and transportation corridors used for moving fuel and nuclear waste. China, for example, is on a crash course to build 40 new reactors in the next five years, a significant concern given their history of devastating industrial accidents [ 99 ]. Given the serious uncertainties over future high-level waste sites and the current poorly secured storage of highly radioactive spent fuel rods at reactor sites, the justice and environmental safety concerns raised here are significant. These currently unresolved problems are handed down to the coming generations to find solutions to (and pay for) producing substantial intergenerational injustice issues. Further, these issues will persist whether nuclear generation continues or countries go nuclear free: the waste is dangerous to all life for millennia.

Beyond the health risks of nuclear weapons production and NPPs, are the justice implications of the sheer costs of nuclear technologies particularly when the costs of waste disposal, contamination remediation at federal sites, and the decommissioning and entombment of NNPs at the end of their service life are calculated. That the radioactive components of a reactor as well as the spent fuel rods have to be securely stored for tens of thousands of years with limited risk to future generations, is on orders of magnitude different than any other industrial technologies. Given those cradle-to-grave environmental, health, and safety costs of nuclear power, renewable wind and solar technologies would appear to have major advantages both from a cost per kilowatt and for the lack of long-term health and safety risks to those in proximity and to future generations. That radioactive wastes and nuclear weapons and reactor technologies are potentially mutagenic, teratogenic, and carcinogenic, the potential multigenerational health risks are substantial. Subsequent generations will have to deal with highly radioactive wastes with technologies that currently don’t exist, revealing how nuclear technologies shift health, environmental, and financial burdens into the future, hiding their real costs and masking the procedural and recognition justice implications.

While there is periodic talk of a “nuclear renaissance” with smaller, cleaner, and safer reactors, the diseconomics of nuclear energy with the proliferation of low cost natural gas has utilities in the U.S. and Europe closing down expensive to operate reactors and switching to gas fired plants and a portfolio of renewable sources [ 100 ]. Indeed, in a recent white paper, Cooper argues that the diseconomics of nuclear power in comparison to both gas and renewables (solar and wind) is such that nuclear operators are poised to retire plants early given the expenses of keeping aging plants operating. While nuclear reactors’ putative zero carbon emissions are argued by some to be a necessary part of an effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, renewables offer more cost effective solutions without the intractable hazardous waste issues [ 100 ]. Of course the claim of zero carbon emissions ignores the emissions of the entire fuel cycle. In a post-Fukushima world, the expansion of nuclear power generation in the U.S. would require major government subsidies to overcome its economic and environmental hazards disadvantages. But given the current conservative drive both to cut federal spending and to deny the significance of anthropogenic climate change such a state centered approach to supporting nuclear expansion in the name of greenhouse gas reduction seems farfetched at best. It can also be argued that given the economic inefficiencies of nuclear power and the very high startup costs, far greater carbon savings can be found elsewhere. The global meat industry produces more greenhouse gases than the entire U.S., pointing to how a simple change in diet could reduce greenhouse gas emissions far more effectively than building billions of dollars’ worth of new reactors with their attendant risks [ 101 ].

What steps could be taken to begin to resolve some of the above discussed justice issues? To overcome all types of environmental justice issues, it is imperative for all key stakeholders including nuclear regulatory agency to take accountability and responsibility in carrying out activities in risk evaluation, risk decision-making, and risk management regarding nuclear power and radiation [ 69 ]. This requires full disclosure and public right-to-know principles and full democratic procedures in all nuclear issues, even those involving the military [ 27 ]. As long as the public is excluded by “national security” concerns and by government agencies relying on nuclear expert knowledge and self-serving rules that favor commercial interests over public well-being, justice will be elusive. Given the history of secrecy and denial in the U.S. over nuclear technology risks and impacts [ 14 ] whether a more just approach could be developed remains unclear. Clearly, phasing out of nuclear energy and nuclear weapons technologies, with their centralized and authoritarian tendencies [ 102 ] (as many European countries have initiated) is a positive step that responds to public opinion. Likewise, planning for high-level waste storage must involve democratic procedures and full consultation with those people and places that will be most affected. To do otherwise will repeat a history of nuclear injustice.

Acknowledgments

This study was presented in the Environmental Justice and Environmental Disasters session at the Association of American Geographers (AAG) Annual Meeting 2016 on 29 March 2016 in San Francisco, CA, USA. The authors would like to thank those participants who provided suggestions and comments.

Author Contributions

Dean Kyne prepares the environmental justice issues associated with U.S. commercial nuclear power plants whereas Bob Bolin writes the environmental justice issues related to nuclear weapons industrial complex.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Secondary Menu

Henry newson leaves a legacy of innovation and institution building, april 8, 2024.

Haiyan Gao, Henry W. Newson Distinguished Professor of Physics

Next November, the Triangle Universities Nuclear Laboratory will celebrate its 60th anniversary. It's among the longest running university-based nuclear physics laboratories in the U.S. and one of the most successful such laboratories in the world. I already knew of it when I was an undergraduate student at Tsinghua University in China in the 1980s because some of my professors collaborated with TUNL physicists.

We have Henry Winston Newson to thank for that legacy.

Prof. Henry Winston Newson, an accomplished physical chemist and nuclear physicist, was a leader and an institution builder who left a lasting impact on nuclear physics and the nuclear physics community. Newson and his associates at North Carolina State University and The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill recognized the potential for amplifying their scientific impact in nuclear physics through regional collaboration. He and collaborators submitted the proposal to the United States Atomic Energy Commission that led to the beginning of TUNL: a coupled 15-MeV Tandem Van de Graaff accelerator and a 15-MeV cyclotron.

Born in Lawrence, Kansas, in 1909, Newson led an accomplished life until he passed away in 1978. Working with Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ernest Lawrence, he helped construct the cyclotron at the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory at Berkeley, participated in the first controlled nuclear chain reaction at the University of Chicago and contributed to the Manhattan Project during his time at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. But Newson is best known for his research on nuclear resonances and as one of the co-inventors of the control system used in nuclear reactors.

Newson joined the Duke Physics faculty as a full professor in 1948, then became TUNL’s founding director with its launch 17 years later. By bringing Duke, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the North Carolina State University together into a research consortium — joined by North Carolina Central University in 2018 — Newson laid the groundwork for an institution that has since become a U.S. Department of Energy Center of Excellence for nuclear research.

During its first few decades, TUNL’s researchers mostly conducted experiments using their own facilities. Newson himself was key: He was the first to combine the two kinds of accelerators TUNL acquired with its initial funding into the so-called Cyclo-Graaff configuration. By accelerating ions in the cyclotron first, then injecting them in the Tandem to double their energy, Newson enabled the research on nuclear structure that was the focus of the rest of his career. Later, TUNL added additional capabilities, like polarized proton, deuteron and neutron beams, as well as polarized targets.

In more recent decades, TUNL researchers have begun conducting and leading experiments at other facilities. Working at institutions around the world, they study fundamental symmetries and neutrinos, quantum chromodynamics, the quantum chromodynamic structure of nucleons and nuclei, as well as nuclear structure and nuclear astrophysics.

But the on-site facility Newson launched hasn’t stopped growing. Besides the original Tandem Laboratory, TUNL has added two new facilities which house different types of accelerators: the High Intensity Gamma-ray Source (HI g S) and the Laboratory for Experimental Nuclear Astrophysics (LENA).

HI g S is a unique facility in the world. It produces gamma-rays by using a process called Compton backscattering. The mechanism produces an intense beam of high-energy photons with a high degree of polarization and very precise energy, which can be tuned over a wide energy range, an important feature for experiments studying quantum chromodynamics, nucleon and nuclear structure, as well as nuclear astrophysics.

LENA is a world-class center for experimental research of nuclear reactions playing an important role in the evolution of stars and the origin of the elements. At the heart of LENA is the electron-cyclotron resonance (ECR) accelerator, producing the world’s most intense proton beams for low energy. A new, state-of-the-art singletron accelerator — designed and constructed specifically for LENA — was also brought into operation recently. In addition to fundamental nuclear physics research, these machines allow TUNL researchers to conduct applied research in areas as varied as national nuclear security, homeland security and plant biology.

More important than all the world-class equipment are the people who make TUNL a vibrant center of excellence. The laboratory has produced about 10% of all the Ph.D.’s in experimental nuclear physics in the U.S. Historically, these graduates have moved into positions in universities, national laboratories and industries, making important contributions to nuclear physics research, education, nuclear energy, medicine, national security and many other sectors. Notable TUNL alumni include former White House science advisors George A. Keyworth II and John H. Gibbons.

Professor Henry W. Newson’s legacy lives on, and I am honored to hold the distinguished professor title in his memory.   

Special thanks to Ying Wu, Robert Janssens, Calvin Howell and Art Champagne for help fact checking this article.

Related Articles

• Dean Gary G. Bennett
• Senior Leadership Team
• National Academy Fellows and Members
• Distinguished Professorships
• Award Winning Teachers
• Bass Fellows
• STEAM @ Duke
• Statement on Diversity & Inclusion
• Department/Program Leadership
• Academic Deans
• Archives Alive Courses
• Cultures & Languages Across the Curriculum
• House Courses
• Languages at Duke
• Transformative Ideas
• Student Career Paths
• Tuition & Financial Aid
• 4 Things to Know about Majors
• Interdepartmental Major
• Certificate Programs
• Spring 2024 First-Year Seminars
• Fall 2023 First-Year Seminars
• Spring 2023 First-Year Seminars
• Faculty Guidelines
• Undergraduate Research
• Study Pathways
• Advice for New Students
• The Robert E. Pristo Filmmaking Awards
• Trinity Ambassadors
• How Advising Works
• Policies & Procedures (“T-Reqs”)
• Graduate Programs
• Summer Session
• Arts & Humanities
• Natural Sciences
• Social Sciences
• Annual Fund
• Scholarships, Fellowships & Summer Support
• Endowed Professorships
• Gift Planning
• Alumni Association
• Brodhead Service Award
• 2022-2023 Dean's Emeriti Circle
• 2023-2024 Dean's Emeriti Circle
• Trinity Parents
• Volunteering

Nuclear tech isn’t all the same, and there’s a specific type Canada must focus on

At the 65,000-square-foot training facility in Bowmanville, Ont., workers in radiation suits do drills in a mock-up of a Candu reactor to prepare for the actual overhaul in an undated photo. Philip Cheung

Jean Chrétien is a former prime minister of Canada. Mike Harris is a former premier of Ontario. Both serve as co-chairs of Canadians for CANDU, a campaign by AtkinsRéalis to promote Candu nuclear-reactor technology.

It can be disconcerting to think that the existence of Canada’s nuclear industry is owed in large part to pure happenstance. And yet, it is by blind luck that, after fleeing war-torn Europe, Russian-born scientist Lew Kowarski eventually landed on our shores. The National Research Council of Canada invited him and his team in 1942 to pursue the development of a new kind of nuclear reactor, one that would use heavy water as its regulator and natural, unenriched uranium as its fuel.

This unique reactor, which came to be known as Candu (Canadian Deuterium Uranium), stands as one of Canada’s most important technological innovations. Six decades after it was conceived, Candu remains the only nuclear power technology on the market that is both Canadian-made and Canadian-owned.

The advent of Canadian nuclear power provided for clean, reliable and abundant energy at a time when the country’s industrial base was growing rapidly. While the circumstances that brought Mr. Kowarski to Canada may have been unplanned, the subsequent and very successful deployment of Candu nuclear reactors at home, and later abroad, was the result of a concerted effort by government – one that we believe must be replicated today to meet the urgent need for secure, reliable, emission-free electricity.

Consider the urgent matter of addressing climate change . Nuclear technology can play a pivotal role in decarbonizing energy grids across the globe, as Canada and its international partners drive toward net-zero emissions.

Nuclear technology’s potential contribution to the fight against climate change is made all the more enticing by the impact it could have on our economy . More than 76,000 Canadians across a wide variety of professional and skilled trades fields are already employed in Canada’s nuclear industry. As Canada and other nations build new reactors in support of emissions reduction targets, there is immense potential for that number to grow – but only if we build Candu reactors.

Not all nuclear technologies are the same. Competing designs will not generate the same kind of economic opportunities for Canadians, because they will increasingly depend on employees, components and supply chains sourced from global markets. In contrast, a single Candu reactor can potentially support up to 60,000 jobs across the country.

Further, only Candu reactors use natural uranium mined in Canada. In contrast, alternatives developed outside of Canada use highly regulated and controlled enriched uranium. The use of natural uranium is a major advantage, considering the fact that Russia is the largest uranium enrichment supplier on the global market. Russian state-owned businesses provided no less than 35 per cent of global enrichment in 2021 and are projected to provide 30 per cent of global supply in 2035.

Candu is also the only nuclear technology that produces medical isotopes as byproducts. Isotopes help diagnose and treat disease, and are a vital lifesaving innovation, with 40 million nuclear medicine procedures performed each year. Just last month, Toronto-based Laurentis Energy Partners announced it would begin producing Yttrium-90 isotopes harvested from Ontario Power Generation’s Darlington Nuclear Generating Station to support cancer treatment in more than 30 countries. Medical isotopes are just one element in the nuclear research and innovation ecosystem centred around Candu technology.

A record number of countries now promote nuclear power’s role in energy security and achieving climate change mitigation targets. This was most recently exemplified by the pledge made by Canada alongside 23 other nations at COP28, the United Nations climate change conference. The countries agreed to triple nuclear energy capacity by 2050.

Yet very few countries have the capacity to build and maintain nuclear reactors. This represents a golden opportunity for Canada to capitalize on its unique nuclear expertise through the export of Candu reactors. Each unit sold could create up to 25,000 Canadian jobs, tapping into an existing, highly experienced Canadian supply chain of more than 200 companies.

We have an opportunity to assume a global leadership role that will support domestic and international efforts to fight climate change while nurturing Canada’s cutting-edge nuclear ecosystem.

We urge governments at all levels and of all stripes to seize on this occasion by choosing the deployment of homegrown Candu nuclear technology in the Canadian market, and aggressively marketing it to energy-starved partners across the planet.

Report an editorial error

Report a technical issue

Editorial code of conduct

Interact with The Globe

We use cookies for analytics and to improve our site. You agree to our use of cookies by closing this message box or continuing to use our site. To find out more, including how to change your settings, see our Cookie Policy

The Independent Nuclear News Agency

Turkey / akkuyu-1 nuclear plant begins ‘full-scale’ commissioning stage, says rosatom.

By Kamen Kraev 9 April 2024

Reactor, one of four under construction, expected to be fully operational in 2028

The “full-scale” commissioning phase has begun for Unit 1 of the Akkuyu nuclear power station under construction in southwest Turkey, Russian project developer Rosatom said.

Alexey Likhachev, head of the Russian state-owned nuclear power corporation, this week visited the site near Mersin on Turkey’s Mediterranean coast.

Likhachev said works on the nuclear island for the VVER-1200 pressurised water reactor unit are going according to schedule.

He said Rosatom is expecting to begin inspecting the primary circuit, conduct hydraulic tests, and load fuel simulators directly into the reactor core by the end of 2024.

In December 2023, the Turkish Nuclear Regulatory Agency issued a commissioning permit for Akkuyu-1.

The $20bn (€18.7bn) Akkuyu nuclear power station will have four Generation III+ VVER-1200 units, with the first expected to come online in 2025 and a further unit starting every year afterwards.

Construction of Akkuyu-1 began in April 2018 and was initially planned for completion in 2023.

Earlier reports have said that Akkuyu will meet 10% of Turkey’s electricity demand when fully operational in 2028.

Turkey wants to generate slightly over 11% of electricity from nuclear energy by 2035, and 29% by 2053 to reach its climate goals, Turkish officials have said .

• Alexey Likhachev

Most popular

Nuclear Fusion / South Korean Researchers Set New Record At KSTAR Reactor

China / Shidao Bay HTR-PM Nuclear Energy Heating Project Begins Operation

Germany / What Next For Nuclear Industry After Reactor Phaseout?

Advanced Reactors / X-energy and TransAlta To Study Feasibility Of Xe-100 Nuclear Plant In Alberta

Nuclear Summit / Governments Call For Level Playing Field For Nuclear Power Finance

Zaporizhzhia Drone Strikes / IAEA’s Grossi Confirms Three Direct Hits Against Reactor Containment Structures

Turkey / Country Needs 20 GW Of Nuclear To Balance Intermittent Renewables, Says Minister

Turkey / Commissioning Permit Granted For First Unit At Akkuyu Nuclear Station

Russia / Nuclear Fuel Manufacturer Tvel Reports 18% Increase In Net Profits

Exclusive nuclear industry news and analysis.