Wednesday, September 30, 2009 9:08 AM EDT
If uranium mining is so safe as that company says it is, then the company and its supporters should be able to list all the possible problems of mining and milling and waste as they understand them to the press and the citizens of Virginia without delay.
Full disclosure shouldn't be a problem.
And if there were any kind of accidents, who actually would be responsible for cleaning up the mess, and how they would do it. And when they would do it.
The ones that actually do the work, not the ones that do town hall meetings.
Phillip Barr
New Mexico
http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/09/30/chatham/opinion/opinion02.txt
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
POLITICS-US: Nukes Agency Pushes New Bomb Production
By Matthew Cardinale
ATLANTA, Georgia, Sep 30 (IPS) - Despite statements by U.S. President Barack Obama that he wants to see the world reduce, and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons, the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration continues to push forward on a programme called Complex Modernisation, which would expand two existing nuclear plants to allow them to produce new plutonium pits and new bomb parts out of enriched uranium for use in a possible new generation of nuclear bombs.
Initiated under the George W. Bush administration, Complex Modernisation - referred to by anti-nuclear activists as "the Bomb-plex" - would "transform the plutonium and uranium manufacturing aspects of the complex into smaller and more efficient operations while maintaining the capabilities NNSA needs to perform its national security missions," according to a report by the NNSA in the Federal Register.
"The main purpose of the Complex Modernisation programme is to maintain nuclear production capacity for the U.S.," Ralph Hutchison of the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance told IPS, arguing that the talk of modernisation obscures the real objectives of the programme.
"There are pieces of the modernisation scheme that might address environmental safety or health concerns, or structural integrity of old buildings that might need to be looked at," he acknowledged.
But the more controversial aspect is the creation of a new nuclear production infrastructure at two sites. First is infrastructure for production of new plutonium pits - the central core of nuclear weapons - at the Los Alamos lab in New Mexico, to replace what the NNSA argues is an aging U.S. nuclear stockpile.
According to its 2009 10-year plan obtained by IPS, the new site could produce 80 plutonium pits per year.
Second, is expansion of enriched uranium processing at the Y-12 facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
"Complex Modernisation" is the latest public relations slogan for the NNSA's plan; previously it was called Complex 2030 and then Complex Transformation.
The NNSA held two years of public hearings on the Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (SPEIS) it was required to produce under the National Environmental Policy Act for Complex Modernisation.
At a hearing attended by this reporter in November 2006 at the Savannah River Site in North Augusta, South Carolina - which was initially considered for the new plutonium pits production - NNSA spokesman Ted Wyka told IPS the agency wanted "to identify a site to build and locate a consolidated plutonium centre, a place where we're going to do manufacturing, production, as well as research and development and surveillance."
"This (SPEIS process) isn't about the types and levels of weapons. That is a presidential decision which is funded by Congress. This is to develop the infrastructure, and to transform the infrastructure," Wyka said. "Our job is to make sure we have the right complex to meet those national security requirements."
The NNSA's final report on the SPEIS process - essentially approving its own "preferred alternative" - was published in December 2008 in the Federal Register, just two weeks before President Obama's inauguration. Here, the NNSA noted that, "With respect to plutonium manufacturing, NNSA is not making any new decisions regarding production capacity until completion of a new Nuclear Posture Review in 2009 or later."
Anti-nuclear activists are looking to Obama's upcoming Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) - which U.S. presidents have conducted at the beginning of their term since Bill Clinton - to set a new course for nuclear weapons policy for the U.S.
Obama will face a decision regarding whether to carry out the production of new plutonium pits, the planning of which was initiated under the Bush administration.
Obama will also face a decision about the proposed new uranium processing in Oak Ridge.
"They want to replace several buildings with one fancy new high-tech 3.5-billion-dollar building they're calling the Uranium Processing Facility," Hutchison said. "And similarly to what [the Federal Register stated] about the plutonium, although they haven't printed this yet, they're waiting on the NPR numbers to come in," before they seek to begin construction.
In the meantime, while Obama works on his NPR, the planning and design of the two new facilities continues.
Obama "included 55 million dollars in his budget for planning for the uranium processing facility in Oak Ridge. What people told him was, if you don't put this much in it, the whole [Complex Modernisation] programme collapses. We need enough money to keep the team together until we make the decision. Congress has doubled that; it's just gone through the process," Hutchison said.
However, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process specific to the Y-12 facility in Oak Ridge was "put on hold", Hutchison said.
"Since February, every month they say they're going to release it next month. They can't put it out, because they need to say why they need to build this bomb plant or how big it needs to be. They can't do that without the numbers from the NPR," he noted.
"They have an internal struggle. Obama's saying and doing all these things moving towards a vision of a world free of nuclear weapons, but the Department of Defence wants to keep building bombs. All the defence contractors, everybody's making money off of building bombs, they're in the DOD up to their necks. They want that number to come out," Hutchison said.
"They want us to get sucked into this word 'transformation,' as if we're forward looking; or 'modernisation' - what's wrong with modernisation? It's still the Bomb-plex. It's still a cover for allowing us to continue to make bomb parts like pits... it's old wine in new bottles," Bobbie Paul, executive director of Georgia Women's Action for New Directions (WAND), told IPS.
Meanwhile, as previously reported by IPS, Obama has made at least two important international speeches concerning nuclear weapons, in which he has said that the U.S. and the world must work towards being completely free of nuclear weapons.
"I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons," Obama said in a speech in Prague on Apr. 5.
"To achieve a global ban on nuclear testing, my administration will immediately and aggressively pursue U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty," Obama said.
One hundred and eighty-one other nations have signed and 149 have ratified the treaty.
Last week, Obama became the first U.S. president to chair a U.N. Security Council summit, where a resolution was passed aimed at limiting the spread of nuclear weapons.
Obama has signaled his support for a significant shift towards disarmament as part of his upcoming NPR. In addition, Obama said he wants the U.S. and Russia to significantly reduce their nuclear weapons as part of the renewal of the Russia-U.S. Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.
However, so far Obama has not taken any steps to stop Complex Modernisation in its tracks and has not addressed the NNSA's plans to develop new nuclear weapons or refurbish old ones. Advocates worry this means new facilities to produce or refurbish nuclear bombs are still on the table.
"It's kind of double-talk. We're talking about reducing our arsenal and not being able to test, but we still have so many bombs on hair-trigger alert... [Complex Modernisation] is another title to give NNSA permission to build new bombs. It flies in the face of what he's told the rest of the world," Paul said.
Advocates worry that Obama - who treads a rocky path and wants a second term in office - may be willing to compromise on Complex Modernisation in return for ratification of the CTBT in the U.S. Senate.
Ratification - which failed in 1999 by 18 votes, receiving only 49 - will require at least 67 votes in the Senate. This means the entire Democratic Caucus, including the two independents, and at least seven Republicans will have to support the measure.
"There's been some talk, in order to get those treaties ratified, some people might allow some new nuclear research and production to go on. [Our position] is no, we stand by Obama. We need to do things consistent with a nuclear-free world," Paul said.
The NNSA did not immediately return two phone calls from IPS seeking comment.
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48654
ATLANTA, Georgia, Sep 30 (IPS) - Despite statements by U.S. President Barack Obama that he wants to see the world reduce, and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons, the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration continues to push forward on a programme called Complex Modernisation, which would expand two existing nuclear plants to allow them to produce new plutonium pits and new bomb parts out of enriched uranium for use in a possible new generation of nuclear bombs.
Initiated under the George W. Bush administration, Complex Modernisation - referred to by anti-nuclear activists as "the Bomb-plex" - would "transform the plutonium and uranium manufacturing aspects of the complex into smaller and more efficient operations while maintaining the capabilities NNSA needs to perform its national security missions," according to a report by the NNSA in the Federal Register.
"The main purpose of the Complex Modernisation programme is to maintain nuclear production capacity for the U.S.," Ralph Hutchison of the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance told IPS, arguing that the talk of modernisation obscures the real objectives of the programme.
"There are pieces of the modernisation scheme that might address environmental safety or health concerns, or structural integrity of old buildings that might need to be looked at," he acknowledged.
But the more controversial aspect is the creation of a new nuclear production infrastructure at two sites. First is infrastructure for production of new plutonium pits - the central core of nuclear weapons - at the Los Alamos lab in New Mexico, to replace what the NNSA argues is an aging U.S. nuclear stockpile.
According to its 2009 10-year plan obtained by IPS, the new site could produce 80 plutonium pits per year.
Second, is expansion of enriched uranium processing at the Y-12 facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
"Complex Modernisation" is the latest public relations slogan for the NNSA's plan; previously it was called Complex 2030 and then Complex Transformation.
The NNSA held two years of public hearings on the Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (SPEIS) it was required to produce under the National Environmental Policy Act for Complex Modernisation.
At a hearing attended by this reporter in November 2006 at the Savannah River Site in North Augusta, South Carolina - which was initially considered for the new plutonium pits production - NNSA spokesman Ted Wyka told IPS the agency wanted "to identify a site to build and locate a consolidated plutonium centre, a place where we're going to do manufacturing, production, as well as research and development and surveillance."
"This (SPEIS process) isn't about the types and levels of weapons. That is a presidential decision which is funded by Congress. This is to develop the infrastructure, and to transform the infrastructure," Wyka said. "Our job is to make sure we have the right complex to meet those national security requirements."
The NNSA's final report on the SPEIS process - essentially approving its own "preferred alternative" - was published in December 2008 in the Federal Register, just two weeks before President Obama's inauguration. Here, the NNSA noted that, "With respect to plutonium manufacturing, NNSA is not making any new decisions regarding production capacity until completion of a new Nuclear Posture Review in 2009 or later."
Anti-nuclear activists are looking to Obama's upcoming Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) - which U.S. presidents have conducted at the beginning of their term since Bill Clinton - to set a new course for nuclear weapons policy for the U.S.
Obama will face a decision regarding whether to carry out the production of new plutonium pits, the planning of which was initiated under the Bush administration.
Obama will also face a decision about the proposed new uranium processing in Oak Ridge.
"They want to replace several buildings with one fancy new high-tech 3.5-billion-dollar building they're calling the Uranium Processing Facility," Hutchison said. "And similarly to what [the Federal Register stated] about the plutonium, although they haven't printed this yet, they're waiting on the NPR numbers to come in," before they seek to begin construction.
In the meantime, while Obama works on his NPR, the planning and design of the two new facilities continues.
Obama "included 55 million dollars in his budget for planning for the uranium processing facility in Oak Ridge. What people told him was, if you don't put this much in it, the whole [Complex Modernisation] programme collapses. We need enough money to keep the team together until we make the decision. Congress has doubled that; it's just gone through the process," Hutchison said.
However, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process specific to the Y-12 facility in Oak Ridge was "put on hold", Hutchison said.
"Since February, every month they say they're going to release it next month. They can't put it out, because they need to say why they need to build this bomb plant or how big it needs to be. They can't do that without the numbers from the NPR," he noted.
"They have an internal struggle. Obama's saying and doing all these things moving towards a vision of a world free of nuclear weapons, but the Department of Defence wants to keep building bombs. All the defence contractors, everybody's making money off of building bombs, they're in the DOD up to their necks. They want that number to come out," Hutchison said.
"They want us to get sucked into this word 'transformation,' as if we're forward looking; or 'modernisation' - what's wrong with modernisation? It's still the Bomb-plex. It's still a cover for allowing us to continue to make bomb parts like pits... it's old wine in new bottles," Bobbie Paul, executive director of Georgia Women's Action for New Directions (WAND), told IPS.
Meanwhile, as previously reported by IPS, Obama has made at least two important international speeches concerning nuclear weapons, in which he has said that the U.S. and the world must work towards being completely free of nuclear weapons.
"I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons," Obama said in a speech in Prague on Apr. 5.
"To achieve a global ban on nuclear testing, my administration will immediately and aggressively pursue U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty," Obama said.
One hundred and eighty-one other nations have signed and 149 have ratified the treaty.
Last week, Obama became the first U.S. president to chair a U.N. Security Council summit, where a resolution was passed aimed at limiting the spread of nuclear weapons.
Obama has signaled his support for a significant shift towards disarmament as part of his upcoming NPR. In addition, Obama said he wants the U.S. and Russia to significantly reduce their nuclear weapons as part of the renewal of the Russia-U.S. Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.
However, so far Obama has not taken any steps to stop Complex Modernisation in its tracks and has not addressed the NNSA's plans to develop new nuclear weapons or refurbish old ones. Advocates worry this means new facilities to produce or refurbish nuclear bombs are still on the table.
"It's kind of double-talk. We're talking about reducing our arsenal and not being able to test, but we still have so many bombs on hair-trigger alert... [Complex Modernisation] is another title to give NNSA permission to build new bombs. It flies in the face of what he's told the rest of the world," Paul said.
Advocates worry that Obama - who treads a rocky path and wants a second term in office - may be willing to compromise on Complex Modernisation in return for ratification of the CTBT in the U.S. Senate.
Ratification - which failed in 1999 by 18 votes, receiving only 49 - will require at least 67 votes in the Senate. This means the entire Democratic Caucus, including the two independents, and at least seven Republicans will have to support the measure.
"There's been some talk, in order to get those treaties ratified, some people might allow some new nuclear research and production to go on. [Our position] is no, we stand by Obama. We need to do things consistent with a nuclear-free world," Paul said.
The NNSA did not immediately return two phone calls from IPS seeking comment.
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48654
4 women arrested at Vermont Yankee plant
September 30, 2009
VERNON, Vt. --Four women have been arrested after walking past the security shack at the front gate of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant and sitting on lawn chairs on the access drive to the reactor site.
The women, who were carrying signs such as "Shut it down" and "Nuclear waste kills the Earth," were cited for unlawful trespass and released Monday.
The Brattleboro Reformer reports the women have been arrested before and cited for unlawful trespass but in all cases their charges have been dropped by the Windham County State's Attorney's office.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2009/09/30/4_women_arrested_at_vermont_yankee_plant/
VERNON, Vt. --Four women have been arrested after walking past the security shack at the front gate of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant and sitting on lawn chairs on the access drive to the reactor site.
The women, who were carrying signs such as "Shut it down" and "Nuclear waste kills the Earth," were cited for unlawful trespass and released Monday.
The Brattleboro Reformer reports the women have been arrested before and cited for unlawful trespass but in all cases their charges have been dropped by the Windham County State's Attorney's office.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2009/09/30/4_women_arrested_at_vermont_yankee_plant/
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Mining Our Treasures
An 1872 Law Paves the Way for a Rush of Claims in the West
By Jane Danowitz and Richard Wiles
Monday, August 27, 2007
Some 5 million Americans will visit the Grand Canyon this year, heeding the advice of Theodore Roosevelt to enjoy one of "the great sights, which every American, if he can travel at all, should see." But while the canyon may be timeless, its surroundings are not. There's a race afoot -- within miles of the park's majestic rim -- to snatch up mining rights on public lands for extracting uranium, gold and other hard-rock metals. What's worse, a 135-year-old federal law not only makes the practice legal but underwrites mining at taxpayer expense.
A recent analysis of government records conducted by the nonprofit Environmental Working Group found a dramatic surge in claims to mine metals on public lands in the West, threatening national parks and other special places. The group found that the number of active claims in 12 Western states has increased 80 percent over the past five years. More than 50,000 claims have been grabbed up in the past nine months. The proliferation of claims in Colorado and Utah has been especially high, with a 200 percent increase since 2003.
Mining is a messy business. Anyone who visits or values our national parks has cause to worry about the mushrooming number of new claimholders, who hold the rights to explore, extract and ultimately even purchase public land regardless of its proximity to treasured landscapes.
For instance, the analysis found that 815 active mining claims lie within five miles of the Grand Canyon, 805 of them staked since 2003. Just outside Arches National Park in Utah, 869 claims have been snatched up, almost all within the past five years. In California, more than 2,000 active mining claims lie within five miles of Joshua Tree, Death Valley and the venerable Yosemite national parks. Almost a third of these have been staked since 2003.
Why the rush? Metal prices today are sky-high, and global demand is great. But the real culprit is the antiquated federal statute governing mining, virtually unchanged since it was signed by Ulysses S. Grant in 1872 to encourage settlement of the West. The law -- which has been on the books since before the light bulb -- often gives metal mining special priority over recreation, ranching and conservation.
Moreover, the law allows mining companies -- even those that are foreign-owned -- to take precious resources from public lands virtually for free; this is in contrast to the oil, gas and coal industries, which have been paying royalties since the 1920s. And in what is arguably one of the great boondoggles of all time, both individual and corporate claimholders can purchase public land for $5 an acre or less. They don't even have to mine the property but can use it -- and have -- to build hotels, condominiums and casinos.
Congress may finally be ready to say enough is enough. Rep. Nick J. Rahall (D-W.Va.), who chairs the House Committee on Natural Resources, has initiated bipartisan legislation that would modernize the antiquated law. The bill would not end or ban mining in the West but would ensure that it's done within modern legal parameters.
The measure would set up long-overdue environmental standards for operations and cleanup, require metal mining companies to pay an 8 percent royalty (oil, gas and coal companies often pay more) and establish a fund to deal with the hundreds of thousands of abandoned mines that scar our landscape. Most important, it would end the priority status that mining has long been afforded on some of our most valued public lands, protecting parks, national forest roadless areas, and wild and scenic river corridors from degradation.
Not surprisingly, the proposal faces stiff opposition from the mining industry's allies in the administration and Congress, who have invoked the specters of compromised national security and damage to the economy. But some of our greatest national treasures and open spaces are on the line.
The threat of hundreds of mining claims for uranium, gold and other metals within a stone's throw of the Grand Canyon should serve as a wake-up call. It's time to reform the 1872 Mining Act and protect some of America's most important places.
Jane Danowitz directs the Pew Environment Group's Campaign for Responsible Mining. Richard Wiles is executive director of the Environmental Working Group.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/26/AR2007082600907.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns
By Jane Danowitz and Richard Wiles
Monday, August 27, 2007
Some 5 million Americans will visit the Grand Canyon this year, heeding the advice of Theodore Roosevelt to enjoy one of "the great sights, which every American, if he can travel at all, should see." But while the canyon may be timeless, its surroundings are not. There's a race afoot -- within miles of the park's majestic rim -- to snatch up mining rights on public lands for extracting uranium, gold and other hard-rock metals. What's worse, a 135-year-old federal law not only makes the practice legal but underwrites mining at taxpayer expense.
A recent analysis of government records conducted by the nonprofit Environmental Working Group found a dramatic surge in claims to mine metals on public lands in the West, threatening national parks and other special places. The group found that the number of active claims in 12 Western states has increased 80 percent over the past five years. More than 50,000 claims have been grabbed up in the past nine months. The proliferation of claims in Colorado and Utah has been especially high, with a 200 percent increase since 2003.
Mining is a messy business. Anyone who visits or values our national parks has cause to worry about the mushrooming number of new claimholders, who hold the rights to explore, extract and ultimately even purchase public land regardless of its proximity to treasured landscapes.
For instance, the analysis found that 815 active mining claims lie within five miles of the Grand Canyon, 805 of them staked since 2003. Just outside Arches National Park in Utah, 869 claims have been snatched up, almost all within the past five years. In California, more than 2,000 active mining claims lie within five miles of Joshua Tree, Death Valley and the venerable Yosemite national parks. Almost a third of these have been staked since 2003.
Why the rush? Metal prices today are sky-high, and global demand is great. But the real culprit is the antiquated federal statute governing mining, virtually unchanged since it was signed by Ulysses S. Grant in 1872 to encourage settlement of the West. The law -- which has been on the books since before the light bulb -- often gives metal mining special priority over recreation, ranching and conservation.
Moreover, the law allows mining companies -- even those that are foreign-owned -- to take precious resources from public lands virtually for free; this is in contrast to the oil, gas and coal industries, which have been paying royalties since the 1920s. And in what is arguably one of the great boondoggles of all time, both individual and corporate claimholders can purchase public land for $5 an acre or less. They don't even have to mine the property but can use it -- and have -- to build hotels, condominiums and casinos.
Congress may finally be ready to say enough is enough. Rep. Nick J. Rahall (D-W.Va.), who chairs the House Committee on Natural Resources, has initiated bipartisan legislation that would modernize the antiquated law. The bill would not end or ban mining in the West but would ensure that it's done within modern legal parameters.
The measure would set up long-overdue environmental standards for operations and cleanup, require metal mining companies to pay an 8 percent royalty (oil, gas and coal companies often pay more) and establish a fund to deal with the hundreds of thousands of abandoned mines that scar our landscape. Most important, it would end the priority status that mining has long been afforded on some of our most valued public lands, protecting parks, national forest roadless areas, and wild and scenic river corridors from degradation.
Not surprisingly, the proposal faces stiff opposition from the mining industry's allies in the administration and Congress, who have invoked the specters of compromised national security and damage to the economy. But some of our greatest national treasures and open spaces are on the line.
The threat of hundreds of mining claims for uranium, gold and other metals within a stone's throw of the Grand Canyon should serve as a wake-up call. It's time to reform the 1872 Mining Act and protect some of America's most important places.
Jane Danowitz directs the Pew Environment Group's Campaign for Responsible Mining. Richard Wiles is executive director of the Environmental Working Group.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/26/AR2007082600907.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns
B&W explains incident during public safety review (Nuke)
By Bryan Gentry
Published: September 28, 2009
A Babcock & Wilcox Company official explained how uranium got into an unchecked container at a local nuclear fuel facility in July during a public review of the company’s safety record Monday night.
Federal regulators’ annual review of B&W focused somewhat on that incident, which prompted a low-level emergency declaration, though it occurred after the official review period ended in June.Roger Cochrane, general manager of the B&W Nuclear Operations Group, called the July incident “a disappointing event that’s not indicative of our typical performance.”
The annual public review officially covered Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspections at B&W from June 2008 through June 2009.
In those inspections, “we found that there were no areas needing improvement,” said Charles Payne, branch chief of the NRC Division of Fuel Facility Inspection.Because of the clean inspections, the NRC plans to conduct its basic 1,700 hours of inspections at B&W this year. In the last inspection year inspectors spent an additional 88 hours inspecting B&W’s Campbell County facility because of previous problems, Payne said.
Once the NRC finishes its report on the July 15 alert, it could increase the inspection hours at B&W this year. “If we do so, we will obviously be in touch with you,” Payne said. “We will document it in a letter and it will be publicly available.”
Cochrane said that the July 15 incident that led to an alert was caused by an oversight.
In that incident, uranium was discovered in the cooling reservoir of a saw that cuts nuclear fuel components.
Cochrane said that B&W used to check that reservoir regularly to make sure it did not contain uranium or too much fluid. In 2004 the company installed a new cooling system that does not use the reservoir. B&W stopped monitoring the reservoir, not realizing fluid could still get into it, he said.
The reservoir should have been “disabled” by filling it with concrete or putting holes in it so it would not collect liquid, but it was not disabled, he said.
He said that the discovery of uranium in the reservoir shows that B&W does train its employees to keep an eye out for problems. “It didn’t appear right, so the operator did the right thing and brought it to his management’s attention,” Cochrane said.
Once the uranium was discovered, B&W declared an alert, the NRC’s lowest emergency level. The alert was active for about five hours until B&W concluded there was not enough uranium there to cause an explosion.
Since then, B&W has reinstated its program of checking that reservoir regularly, Cochrane said. After verifying how the uranium got into it, the reservoir will be disabled, he said.
B&W has also checked its documentation on other equipment changes to make sure there have been no similar oversights in other areas, Cochrane said.
Gene Cobey, the deputy director of the NRC’s Division of Fuel Facility Inspection, said the agency’s report on the July incident should be released in mid-October.
The meeting was held at Lynchburg City Hall. About 20 people attended, mostly B&W and NRC officials.
Share This:Email My Facebook Delicious Digg Twitter Favorites More
http://www2.newsadvance.com/lna/news/local/article/bw_explains_incident_during_public_safety_review/19888/
Published: September 28, 2009
A Babcock & Wilcox Company official explained how uranium got into an unchecked container at a local nuclear fuel facility in July during a public review of the company’s safety record Monday night.
Federal regulators’ annual review of B&W focused somewhat on that incident, which prompted a low-level emergency declaration, though it occurred after the official review period ended in June.Roger Cochrane, general manager of the B&W Nuclear Operations Group, called the July incident “a disappointing event that’s not indicative of our typical performance.”
The annual public review officially covered Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspections at B&W from June 2008 through June 2009.
In those inspections, “we found that there were no areas needing improvement,” said Charles Payne, branch chief of the NRC Division of Fuel Facility Inspection.Because of the clean inspections, the NRC plans to conduct its basic 1,700 hours of inspections at B&W this year. In the last inspection year inspectors spent an additional 88 hours inspecting B&W’s Campbell County facility because of previous problems, Payne said.
Once the NRC finishes its report on the July 15 alert, it could increase the inspection hours at B&W this year. “If we do so, we will obviously be in touch with you,” Payne said. “We will document it in a letter and it will be publicly available.”
Cochrane said that the July 15 incident that led to an alert was caused by an oversight.
In that incident, uranium was discovered in the cooling reservoir of a saw that cuts nuclear fuel components.
Cochrane said that B&W used to check that reservoir regularly to make sure it did not contain uranium or too much fluid. In 2004 the company installed a new cooling system that does not use the reservoir. B&W stopped monitoring the reservoir, not realizing fluid could still get into it, he said.
The reservoir should have been “disabled” by filling it with concrete or putting holes in it so it would not collect liquid, but it was not disabled, he said.
He said that the discovery of uranium in the reservoir shows that B&W does train its employees to keep an eye out for problems. “It didn’t appear right, so the operator did the right thing and brought it to his management’s attention,” Cochrane said.
Once the uranium was discovered, B&W declared an alert, the NRC’s lowest emergency level. The alert was active for about five hours until B&W concluded there was not enough uranium there to cause an explosion.
Since then, B&W has reinstated its program of checking that reservoir regularly, Cochrane said. After verifying how the uranium got into it, the reservoir will be disabled, he said.
B&W has also checked its documentation on other equipment changes to make sure there have been no similar oversights in other areas, Cochrane said.
Gene Cobey, the deputy director of the NRC’s Division of Fuel Facility Inspection, said the agency’s report on the July incident should be released in mid-October.
The meeting was held at Lynchburg City Hall. About 20 people attended, mostly B&W and NRC officials.
Share This:Email My Facebook Delicious Digg Twitter Favorites More
http://www2.newsadvance.com/lna/news/local/article/bw_explains_incident_during_public_safety_review/19888/
Time for Citizens to Convene
Published on Monday, September 28, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
by Ralph Nader
Just when many conditions seemed ripe for a progressive political movement, the likelihood is fading fast. Concentrated corporate power over our political economy and its control over peoples lives knows few boundaries.
As Republican investor advocate leader Robert Monks puts it: “The United States is a corporatist state. This means that individuals are largely excluded both in the political and corporate spheres.”
Since Wall Street’s self-inflicted multi-trillion dollar collapse last year, the corporate supremacists have shown no remorse. They have become more aggressive: they are blocking regulatory reforms; pouring campaign donations into the governing Democrats’ coffers; and, shamelessly demanding more bailouts, subsidies and tax reductions. They also continue to block avenues for judicial justice by aggrieved people, whether they be the wrongfully injured, defrauded consumers and investors, or jettisoned workers and bilked pensioneers.
The problem: large corporations have too many structural powers over the citizenry. These “artificial persons” have acquired the constitutional rights originally given in 1787 only to “natural persons.” In fact, corporations have enormously greater privileges and immunities than the people themselves because of their global control over politicians, capital, labor and technology.
Normal sanctions do not adequately deter multinational companies that can obscure their culpability, escape jurisdictions or create their own parents (holding companies) and endless progeny (subsidiaries) to evade or avoid accountability.
Even the most ardent progressives in Congress, and the most organized progressive groups, cannot begin to deal with such gigantic mismatches.
Decades ago, there was more debate about the need for different “rules of conduct,” to use conservative Frederick A. Hayek’s phrase, between corporations and human beings. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis warned about corporations becoming “Frankensteins.” Presidents Teddy Roosevelt and William Howard Taft wanted to replace the permissive state chartering laws with tough federal chartering laws for large corporations.
For two generations the ever-expanding superior status of corporations has gone undiscussed in political realms. During that time, corporations and their attorneys rode roughshod over the “we the people” preamble of the Constitution. Our charter of government never mentions the word “corporation.”
Unabated, the corporate crime wave continues. The corporate welfare kings get fatter, the power disparity expands between corporations and shrinking unions, and the pull-down pressures, created by the corporate shipment of jobs and industries to repressive regimes abroad, further corrodes American work opportunities. More of government, including military functions, is being corporatized despite recurring reports of rising waste, fraud and abuse.
The federal government’s budget for auditors, investigators, inspectors and prosecutors is laughable, given the scale of looting: the defrauding of medicare; abuses of Pentagon contracts; the taking of minerals on the public lands; and the giveaways of government research and development to favored companies.
Corporate profits keep going up, except for bailout periods, while most Americans’ standards of living decline. Our country, so full of unapplied solutions, is gridlocked—stuck in traffic. Record levels of poverty, unemployment, home foreclosures, consumer debt and bankruptcies, and people lacking health insurance persist, yet corporate political power has not waned. A bad sign. Indeed, it has increased, notwithstanding large majorities of Americans decrying too much corporate control over their lives. The leave-it-to-the market ideology of Big Business, and its claims of patriotism, have lost credibility in this globalized era. Yet, the myth lives on even as socialism routinely saves big capitalism from its own greed.
What can active progressives do? In Congress, amongst the Republicans and corporate Democrats, the small progressive caucus of 83 members generates little political impact. Ironically, many of those progressive legislators are busy dialing for the same commercial campaign dollars.
Outside Congress, progressive groups have been on the defensive for so many years that they have few offensive political strategies. The two parties are in the narrowest channels of self-perpetuation. They gerrymander their opponents into one-party districts and together produce a matrix of obstacles to keep competition from third parties at bay.
Both parties give preferential access to the hordes of drug, coal, banking and other industry lobbyists, who are allowed de facto to choose many of the nominees that lead the government’s departments, such as the Defense and Treasury Departments.
Enough abuses have been documented. Enough power has been concentrated to shred our democratic processes and institutions. It is time to decisively shift power from the few to the many. Democratic power is the essence of progressive political philosophy, and the precondition for the emergence of a just society nourished by higher public expectations.
How to begin? Progressives—elected, civic, labor and funders—need to come together in a national convention to aggregate the existing forces for change. Such a gathering could create a clear-eyed vision of the common good to shatter debilitating public cynicism and passivity.
In attendance must be a broad range of energetic community organizers, thinkers, the seriously generous progressive mega-rich and the heroic dynamos who have risen from their suffering to act on behalf of “liberty and justice for all.”
There is ample historic precedent for the galvanizing effect of founding social justice conventions. This proposed convocation needs to take civic and political action to unprecedented levels, powerfully fueled by committed resources and strategies to build enduring democratic institutions.
Unused knowledge, and many working models of community economics, environmental advances and educational quality exist to further the larger progressive dynamic.
Lincoln once observed the crucial importance of “public sentiment” for moving a society forward. That “public sentiment” is here, deep, widespread and ready for clearly explained “redirections.”
If a mantra is needed in the convention hall, let the eternal words of the Roman, Marcus Cicero, be emblazoned for all to see: “Freedom is participation in power.” For this aspiration places responsibility where it must always reside: on the shoulders, in the minds, and in the hearts of an empowered American people.
Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His most recent book - and first novel - is, Only The Super Wealthy Can Save Us. His most recent work of non-fiction is The Seventeen Traditions.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/09/28-10
by Ralph Nader
Just when many conditions seemed ripe for a progressive political movement, the likelihood is fading fast. Concentrated corporate power over our political economy and its control over peoples lives knows few boundaries.
As Republican investor advocate leader Robert Monks puts it: “The United States is a corporatist state. This means that individuals are largely excluded both in the political and corporate spheres.”
Since Wall Street’s self-inflicted multi-trillion dollar collapse last year, the corporate supremacists have shown no remorse. They have become more aggressive: they are blocking regulatory reforms; pouring campaign donations into the governing Democrats’ coffers; and, shamelessly demanding more bailouts, subsidies and tax reductions. They also continue to block avenues for judicial justice by aggrieved people, whether they be the wrongfully injured, defrauded consumers and investors, or jettisoned workers and bilked pensioneers.
The problem: large corporations have too many structural powers over the citizenry. These “artificial persons” have acquired the constitutional rights originally given in 1787 only to “natural persons.” In fact, corporations have enormously greater privileges and immunities than the people themselves because of their global control over politicians, capital, labor and technology.
Normal sanctions do not adequately deter multinational companies that can obscure their culpability, escape jurisdictions or create their own parents (holding companies) and endless progeny (subsidiaries) to evade or avoid accountability.
Even the most ardent progressives in Congress, and the most organized progressive groups, cannot begin to deal with such gigantic mismatches.
Decades ago, there was more debate about the need for different “rules of conduct,” to use conservative Frederick A. Hayek’s phrase, between corporations and human beings. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis warned about corporations becoming “Frankensteins.” Presidents Teddy Roosevelt and William Howard Taft wanted to replace the permissive state chartering laws with tough federal chartering laws for large corporations.
For two generations the ever-expanding superior status of corporations has gone undiscussed in political realms. During that time, corporations and their attorneys rode roughshod over the “we the people” preamble of the Constitution. Our charter of government never mentions the word “corporation.”
Unabated, the corporate crime wave continues. The corporate welfare kings get fatter, the power disparity expands between corporations and shrinking unions, and the pull-down pressures, created by the corporate shipment of jobs and industries to repressive regimes abroad, further corrodes American work opportunities. More of government, including military functions, is being corporatized despite recurring reports of rising waste, fraud and abuse.
The federal government’s budget for auditors, investigators, inspectors and prosecutors is laughable, given the scale of looting: the defrauding of medicare; abuses of Pentagon contracts; the taking of minerals on the public lands; and the giveaways of government research and development to favored companies.
Corporate profits keep going up, except for bailout periods, while most Americans’ standards of living decline. Our country, so full of unapplied solutions, is gridlocked—stuck in traffic. Record levels of poverty, unemployment, home foreclosures, consumer debt and bankruptcies, and people lacking health insurance persist, yet corporate political power has not waned. A bad sign. Indeed, it has increased, notwithstanding large majorities of Americans decrying too much corporate control over their lives. The leave-it-to-the market ideology of Big Business, and its claims of patriotism, have lost credibility in this globalized era. Yet, the myth lives on even as socialism routinely saves big capitalism from its own greed.
What can active progressives do? In Congress, amongst the Republicans and corporate Democrats, the small progressive caucus of 83 members generates little political impact. Ironically, many of those progressive legislators are busy dialing for the same commercial campaign dollars.
Outside Congress, progressive groups have been on the defensive for so many years that they have few offensive political strategies. The two parties are in the narrowest channels of self-perpetuation. They gerrymander their opponents into one-party districts and together produce a matrix of obstacles to keep competition from third parties at bay.
Both parties give preferential access to the hordes of drug, coal, banking and other industry lobbyists, who are allowed de facto to choose many of the nominees that lead the government’s departments, such as the Defense and Treasury Departments.
Enough abuses have been documented. Enough power has been concentrated to shred our democratic processes and institutions. It is time to decisively shift power from the few to the many. Democratic power is the essence of progressive political philosophy, and the precondition for the emergence of a just society nourished by higher public expectations.
How to begin? Progressives—elected, civic, labor and funders—need to come together in a national convention to aggregate the existing forces for change. Such a gathering could create a clear-eyed vision of the common good to shatter debilitating public cynicism and passivity.
In attendance must be a broad range of energetic community organizers, thinkers, the seriously generous progressive mega-rich and the heroic dynamos who have risen from their suffering to act on behalf of “liberty and justice for all.”
There is ample historic precedent for the galvanizing effect of founding social justice conventions. This proposed convocation needs to take civic and political action to unprecedented levels, powerfully fueled by committed resources and strategies to build enduring democratic institutions.
Unused knowledge, and many working models of community economics, environmental advances and educational quality exist to further the larger progressive dynamic.
Lincoln once observed the crucial importance of “public sentiment” for moving a society forward. That “public sentiment” is here, deep, widespread and ready for clearly explained “redirections.”
If a mantra is needed in the convention hall, let the eternal words of the Roman, Marcus Cicero, be emblazoned for all to see: “Freedom is participation in power.” For this aspiration places responsibility where it must always reside: on the shoulders, in the minds, and in the hearts of an empowered American people.
Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His most recent book - and first novel - is, Only The Super Wealthy Can Save Us. His most recent work of non-fiction is The Seventeen Traditions.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/09/28-10
Monday, September 28, 2009
Lethal Legacy? Abandoned uranium mines bring health worries
Sunday, May 01, 2005
By Jomay Steen, Journal Staff Writer
BUFFALO -- In a series of bluffs and buttes near the Montana and South Dakota border are the leavings of the atomic age.
A decade after the United States dropped atomic bombs at Hiro- shima and Nagasaki, uranium mining claims were filed on the 65,000 acres of the North Cave Hills, South Cave Hills and Slim Buttes areas of Custer National Forest's Sioux Ranger District, about 100 miles north of Rapid City.
By 1965, the mining companies had closed operations, packed up offices and equipment and disappeared from the prairie.
Left behind and nearly forgotten were the 89 mined sites on national forest system land on the South Dakota portion of the Sioux Ranger District.
Harding County residents worry that the abandoned uranium mines might have caused a higher incidence of cancer in the area. But state health officials say their fears are unfounded.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Forest Service has taken steps to remediate problems caused by the mines in the North Cave Hills and has asked one of the mining companies to help with clean up.
Conscious of cancer
On March 15, abandoned uranium mines were the last things on the minds of Buffalo residents.
Calving and lambing seasons were in full force. Many area ranchers and farmers had broken away from barnyard chores to drive to Harding County Courthouse in Buffalo to renew land leases.
Linda Stephens greeted friends at a local diner and talked about the disappearance of an area businessman on his way to Rapid City. Part owner and publisher of the Nation's Center News, Stephens eventually turned the talk to health.
"Talk to anyone here, and they have a brother, uncle or cousin who has cancer," Stephens said. She, too, has cancer.
Eleven cases of rare brain tumors have been diagnosed in Harding County in the past decade.
In the past 24 months, Stephens, Krystyna Nible, Janice Peck and Frank Clark were diagnosed with brain tumors.
Doctors told Stephens, 60, and Krystyna Nible, 9, that they had pituitary tumors.
Rose Blake, 50, of Camp Crook and LaQueta "Lucky" Teigen, 52, of Buffalo were diagnosed with pituitary tumors about 10 years ago and survived through surgery and treatment. The four females with pituitary tumors were the first in their families to develop brain tumors.
Cancer may be caused by external factors, such as tobacco, chemicals, radiation and infectious organisms, or internal factors such as hormones, age, immune conditions and mutations that occur from metabolism, the American Cancer Society says.
These factors may act together or in sequence to cause cancer. Ten or more years often pass between exposure to external factors and detectable cancer, according to the American Cancer Society.
A letter from South Dakota Department of Health officials stated that pituitary tumors occur in one in 10,000 people at autopsy.
Stephens said that Harding County, with a population of 1,500 people, has four pituitary cancer patients.
Deena Nible, 36, received the devastating news that her daughter had a brain tumor in October 2003.
"It just rips you in two," she said.
The youngest of Deena and Jeff Nible's four children, Krystyna experienced severe headaches, vision problems and frequent urination.
On Oct. 29, Krystyna underwent six hours of surgery by a nine-doctor surgical team at Children's Hospital in Denver. The team removed a third of the tumor. Krystyna began six weeks of radiation in December 2003.
"They didn't say that anything environmental had caused it," her mother said.
The doctors explained to the family that a sac encases the pituitary gland at birth, and the sac breaks as the child grows. The cells that remain from the sac may develop into a tumor later in life, Nible said.
But Nible said her daughter's doctors did think it was unusual that several people in the same town would be diagnosed in the same year.
"It doesn't happen very often," she said.
In September 2003, Peck underwent surgery at St. Anthony Central Hospital in Denver for acoustic schwannoma, a walnut-sized tumor lodged in the canal of her right ear.
Peck, 68, lived most of her life in the Reva area before marrying Arlie Peck and moving to his ranch 30 years ago. "We lived real close to the Slim Buttes area and the uranium mines," Peck said.
Retiring to Sturgis in 2001, she said she experienced pin-prickling sensations on her face, hearing loss and severe loss of balance before seeing a doctor. Healthy for most of her life, it was a shock to learn the seriousness of her ailments.
"A brain tumor is a surprise," she said.
Peck's doctors wouldn't speculate about what had caused her tumor, saying there were a number of external factors that may have contributed to her illness, including two serious concussions Peck had at an earlier age, she said.
"If one thing doesn't get you, something else will," Peck said.
Stephens grew up in Harding County near Ralph and has lived the majority of her life in Buffalo.
On July 10, 2004, Stephens underwent 28 days of radiation at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. The treatments arrested the growth of her tumor, a condition she had lived with undetected for nearly 20 years.
Stephens believes the abandoned uranium mines about 25 miles north of Buffalo may be the culprits in Harding County's health problems. She said if she were to draw a circle on a map within a 65-mile radius from the mining sites, the number of people with cancer abounds.
"In the late '50s and early '60s, everyone out here thought they would get rich if they had uranium on their property," Stephens said.
Stephens said a uranium processing plant was across the border in Griffin, N.D., between Rhame and Bowman. Locals dug out the uranium and hauled the radioactive material to Griffin in open trucks and stock trailers.
"They dug holes all over. They cut the top off Ludlow Hill," she said.
While Stephens was at Mayo Clinic, one of the first questions she asked her neurologist, Dr. Joon Uhm, was the cause that would have placed four people in different age groups, different careers and lifestyles with this particular type of cancer.
"His reply was, ‘uranium,'" Stephens said.
Mining history
In 1962, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission pushed for major uranium mining operations throughout the nation, including South Dakota.
Uranium was mined in Harding and Fall River counties. The state ranked as the nation's sixth-largest uranium producer in 1964 and 1965. South Dakota produced 1 million tons of uranium ore and 3 million pounds of processed uranium between 1951 and 1973.
According to Laurie Walters-Clark, on-scene coordinator of the U.S.F.S. Sioux Ranger District, unrestricted mining was permitted under the General Mining Laws and Public Law 357 and required no restoration. Active mining of the Slim Buttes and Cave Hills occurred from 1962 through 1964.
Prospecting was conducted by bulldozer cuts, backhoe, rim cutting and drilling. Bulldozers removed dirt to allow access to the uranium-bearing lignite coal beds, which, in places, were 80 feet below the surface. During the mining, much of the spoils were piled on the outer edges of the pits. Today, the erosive spoils remain piled on the pit floors and rims.
The uranium mining at the Riley Pass site in the North Cave Hills left behind areas with elevated radiation and heavy metal levels both in the mine area and the sediments, which are eroding.
"Elevated levels of arsenic, boron, molybdenum and selenium are in the exposed spoils," Walters-Clark said.
Reclamation effort
In 1989, heavy erosion spurred the Forest Service to build five catch basins to trap sediment washing down from the former mine sites. By the next year, the Forest Service removed more than 6,700 cubic yards of sediment from the basins. With an estimated $2 million price tag, Forest Service officials decided against further reclamation efforts.
Seven years later, Custer National Forest officials began reviewing soils tested in 1990 in the area to qualify for the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, or CERCLA, administered by the Environmental Protection Agency. The project qualified for CERCLA, which provides reclamation funds to restore inactive hazardous waste sites.
Results from the soil analyses showed 13 bluffs as sources of hazardous substances. The hazardous materials testing greater than three times the normal levels included arsenic, molybdenum, thorium, total uranium, radium 226 and uranium 235.
As part of the CERCLA process, the Forest Service tracked Kerr-McGee as one of the businesses responsible for mining the area and abandoning eight bluffs considered hazardous.
In 1972, Kerr-McGee paid for construction of dikes and dams at two locations and moved a segment of road at Riley Pass. In 2002, Forest Service officials negotiated with Kerr-McGee to clean out the sediment ponds. Kerr-McGee has declined to help with further cleanup, and no law requires them to do so.
This year, the Forest Service plans to clean the sediment ponds and build a catch basin and diversion ditch. It will also release an engineering evaluation providing recommendations for reclamation and cost analysis later this month, Walters-Clark said.
Expected to be finalized this summer, the report will be available for public review and comment at Harding County Courthouse for at least 60 days.
The Forest Service will continue to work with representatives from Harding County and other interested groups regarding status and restoration activities in the project area.
Worried about water
Laurel Foust's ranch is three miles from the North Cave Hills and the open uranium mines there.
Like Stephens, she suspects that contaminants have reached her livestock through wind and water systems. They may also have been a factor in her husband's cancer.
Richard Foust was diagnosed with colon cancer in 1993.
He died in 1994 at age 44.
"He lived here all of his life," Foust said.
Growing up close to the rugged terrain, he spent a great deal of his life hunting, riding and exploring the hills, she said.
She acknowledges that her husband came into contact with the defoliant Agent Orange while serving in the military in Vietnam. But Foust and her children continue to drink bottled water because of her concerns about the water that comes from the taps.
"People have spent thousands of dollars on water lines and wells here so their livestock won't have to drink the water out of dams and creeks," she said.
Drinking from water sources that has runoff affects the livestock, Foust said.
The animals develop copper deficiency, which can cause spontaneous abortions in cattle.
Cattle's hair turns white after drinking the water for about six years, Foust said.
A neighbor, Randy Feist, 47, said loss of livestock production and copper deficiencies led him to suspect something was wrong with his water.
On his ranch 2-1/2 miles from the North Cave Hills, Feist had his water tested and discovered bad news.
"There's arsenic in our drainages," he said.
Before environmental and reclamation laws enacted in the '70s, mining companies were legally allowed to abandon the sites without sealing or reclamation of any kind. These abandoned sites have undergone natural erosion from 41 years of wind, rain and snow, he said.
"There were no reclamation laws when these companies did the mining," he said.
Feist said contaminants may have caused his two sisters' and a brother's health problems.
"Half of my siblings have thyroid problems. It's one of the first symptoms of radiation poisoning," Feist said.
He has also had his share of health problems. Last September, doctors removed a cancerous kidney from the father of four children.
Feist has since recovered after surgery.
But at night, when thoughts of his and his wife's relatives dying of cancer chases away sleep, he wonders about his own family.
"What am I subjecting my kids to?" he asked.
Skeptical response
South Dakota State University Extension beef specialist Trey Patterson said graying or losing color in the hides of cattle is a symptom of copper deficiency.
But he said copper deficiency in cattle is a common ailment in western South Dakota and not a symptom of radiation poisoning.
Patterson said that high concentrations of sulfur in water, molybdenum in feed and iron in water or feed or both lead to this condition.
"It is consistent with what I've seen on ranches in southwestern South Dakota," Patterson said.
State veterinarian Sam Holland, head of the South Dakota Animal Industry Board, said animals would exhibit the same symptoms as people if exposed to acute radiation — bloody stools, welts and hair loss.
But Holland said in his 18 years as assistant and state veterinarian he has never treated animals sickened from radiation poisoning because of hazardous materials.
However, it isn't the first time Holland has dealt with questions about livestock being exposed to uranium. As many as 100 uranium mines operated from the 1950s through the 1970s in the Edgemont area. Years after the mines closed, Fall River County livestock owners complained of animals sickened by runoff and contamination from those mines. None of the complaints was ever substantiated, he said.
"The anecdotal records never matched what was actually reported to us," Holland said.
No safe level
But for humans, there is no safe level of exposure to radiation, according to Diane D'Arrigo of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, a private environmental organization in Washington, D.C.
Low levels of radiation damage tissues, cells and other vital functions, causing cell death, genetic mutations, cancers, leukemia, birth defects and reproductive, immune and endocrine system disorders, D'Arrigo said.
The endocrine system includes the thyroid and pituitary glands.
"Every amount of radiation increases all these health effects," D'Arrigo said.
The organization's Web site, www.nirs.org, says long-term exposure to low levels of radiation can be more dangerous than short exposures to high levels.
D'Arrigo said federal officials who write regulations are unduly influenced by the energy industry, which gives a skewed perspective of what is acceptable.
"The science at any level will tell you any exposure is an increased risk," D'Arrigo said.
Cindy Folkers, energy and radiation spokeswoman at Nuclear Information and Resource Service, said depleted uranium broken down into small particles can be suspended in the air and inhaled or ingested.
Once absorbed into the blood stream, the particles are deposited mostly into bone and kidneys. Most of what is deposited in the kidneys cycles out in urine, but it can remain in bone for years, Folkers said.
"It collects around the DNA molecules and muscles, and the body thinks it is potassium. This is a problem," Folkers said.
She said that although companies took the uranium ore, what was left behind is still toxic and includes thoriums and heavy metals such as mercury or lead.
"Meanwhile, people stuck in the community are dying," Folkers said.
But statistics from the South Dakota Cancer Registry don't back up D'Arrigo and Folkers' claims about cancer links to exposure to hazardous contaminants from the uranium mines in Harding County, state officials said.
Barb Buhler, information officer at the South Dakota Department of Health, said sparsely populated areas such as Harding County are simply too small for statistics to prove a cause.
"The numbers are just not there," Buhler said.
She checked into Harding County cancer rates listed in the South Dakota Cancer Registry. From 1996-2001, 21 cancer cases were reported in Harding County, an average of four per year.
But Buhler said the age- adjusted cancer rate in Harding County was much lower than state and national rates.
During 2001, South Dakota had 40 cases of thyroid cancers, the cancer most associated with uranium and fallout. The age-adjusted state rate was less than the national rate, Buhler said.
But people such as Randy Feist are convinced there is a link between the local cancer victims and the uranium mines.
Feist said most people in Harding County — and especially in his neighborhood — don't expect to live without their names going into the cancer registry at some point in their lives.
"When we die, we're going to die of cancer," he said.
Contact Jomay Steen at 394-8418 or jomay.steen@rapidcityjournal.com
http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2005/05/01/news/local/top/news01.txt
By Jomay Steen, Journal Staff Writer
BUFFALO -- In a series of bluffs and buttes near the Montana and South Dakota border are the leavings of the atomic age.
A decade after the United States dropped atomic bombs at Hiro- shima and Nagasaki, uranium mining claims were filed on the 65,000 acres of the North Cave Hills, South Cave Hills and Slim Buttes areas of Custer National Forest's Sioux Ranger District, about 100 miles north of Rapid City.
By 1965, the mining companies had closed operations, packed up offices and equipment and disappeared from the prairie.
Left behind and nearly forgotten were the 89 mined sites on national forest system land on the South Dakota portion of the Sioux Ranger District.
Harding County residents worry that the abandoned uranium mines might have caused a higher incidence of cancer in the area. But state health officials say their fears are unfounded.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Forest Service has taken steps to remediate problems caused by the mines in the North Cave Hills and has asked one of the mining companies to help with clean up.
Conscious of cancer
On March 15, abandoned uranium mines were the last things on the minds of Buffalo residents.
Calving and lambing seasons were in full force. Many area ranchers and farmers had broken away from barnyard chores to drive to Harding County Courthouse in Buffalo to renew land leases.
Linda Stephens greeted friends at a local diner and talked about the disappearance of an area businessman on his way to Rapid City. Part owner and publisher of the Nation's Center News, Stephens eventually turned the talk to health.
"Talk to anyone here, and they have a brother, uncle or cousin who has cancer," Stephens said. She, too, has cancer.
Eleven cases of rare brain tumors have been diagnosed in Harding County in the past decade.
In the past 24 months, Stephens, Krystyna Nible, Janice Peck and Frank Clark were diagnosed with brain tumors.
Doctors told Stephens, 60, and Krystyna Nible, 9, that they had pituitary tumors.
Rose Blake, 50, of Camp Crook and LaQueta "Lucky" Teigen, 52, of Buffalo were diagnosed with pituitary tumors about 10 years ago and survived through surgery and treatment. The four females with pituitary tumors were the first in their families to develop brain tumors.
Cancer may be caused by external factors, such as tobacco, chemicals, radiation and infectious organisms, or internal factors such as hormones, age, immune conditions and mutations that occur from metabolism, the American Cancer Society says.
These factors may act together or in sequence to cause cancer. Ten or more years often pass between exposure to external factors and detectable cancer, according to the American Cancer Society.
A letter from South Dakota Department of Health officials stated that pituitary tumors occur in one in 10,000 people at autopsy.
Stephens said that Harding County, with a population of 1,500 people, has four pituitary cancer patients.
Deena Nible, 36, received the devastating news that her daughter had a brain tumor in October 2003.
"It just rips you in two," she said.
The youngest of Deena and Jeff Nible's four children, Krystyna experienced severe headaches, vision problems and frequent urination.
On Oct. 29, Krystyna underwent six hours of surgery by a nine-doctor surgical team at Children's Hospital in Denver. The team removed a third of the tumor. Krystyna began six weeks of radiation in December 2003.
"They didn't say that anything environmental had caused it," her mother said.
The doctors explained to the family that a sac encases the pituitary gland at birth, and the sac breaks as the child grows. The cells that remain from the sac may develop into a tumor later in life, Nible said.
But Nible said her daughter's doctors did think it was unusual that several people in the same town would be diagnosed in the same year.
"It doesn't happen very often," she said.
In September 2003, Peck underwent surgery at St. Anthony Central Hospital in Denver for acoustic schwannoma, a walnut-sized tumor lodged in the canal of her right ear.
Peck, 68, lived most of her life in the Reva area before marrying Arlie Peck and moving to his ranch 30 years ago. "We lived real close to the Slim Buttes area and the uranium mines," Peck said.
Retiring to Sturgis in 2001, she said she experienced pin-prickling sensations on her face, hearing loss and severe loss of balance before seeing a doctor. Healthy for most of her life, it was a shock to learn the seriousness of her ailments.
"A brain tumor is a surprise," she said.
Peck's doctors wouldn't speculate about what had caused her tumor, saying there were a number of external factors that may have contributed to her illness, including two serious concussions Peck had at an earlier age, she said.
"If one thing doesn't get you, something else will," Peck said.
Stephens grew up in Harding County near Ralph and has lived the majority of her life in Buffalo.
On July 10, 2004, Stephens underwent 28 days of radiation at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. The treatments arrested the growth of her tumor, a condition she had lived with undetected for nearly 20 years.
Stephens believes the abandoned uranium mines about 25 miles north of Buffalo may be the culprits in Harding County's health problems. She said if she were to draw a circle on a map within a 65-mile radius from the mining sites, the number of people with cancer abounds.
"In the late '50s and early '60s, everyone out here thought they would get rich if they had uranium on their property," Stephens said.
Stephens said a uranium processing plant was across the border in Griffin, N.D., between Rhame and Bowman. Locals dug out the uranium and hauled the radioactive material to Griffin in open trucks and stock trailers.
"They dug holes all over. They cut the top off Ludlow Hill," she said.
While Stephens was at Mayo Clinic, one of the first questions she asked her neurologist, Dr. Joon Uhm, was the cause that would have placed four people in different age groups, different careers and lifestyles with this particular type of cancer.
"His reply was, ‘uranium,'" Stephens said.
Mining history
In 1962, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission pushed for major uranium mining operations throughout the nation, including South Dakota.
Uranium was mined in Harding and Fall River counties. The state ranked as the nation's sixth-largest uranium producer in 1964 and 1965. South Dakota produced 1 million tons of uranium ore and 3 million pounds of processed uranium between 1951 and 1973.
According to Laurie Walters-Clark, on-scene coordinator of the U.S.F.S. Sioux Ranger District, unrestricted mining was permitted under the General Mining Laws and Public Law 357 and required no restoration. Active mining of the Slim Buttes and Cave Hills occurred from 1962 through 1964.
Prospecting was conducted by bulldozer cuts, backhoe, rim cutting and drilling. Bulldozers removed dirt to allow access to the uranium-bearing lignite coal beds, which, in places, were 80 feet below the surface. During the mining, much of the spoils were piled on the outer edges of the pits. Today, the erosive spoils remain piled on the pit floors and rims.
The uranium mining at the Riley Pass site in the North Cave Hills left behind areas with elevated radiation and heavy metal levels both in the mine area and the sediments, which are eroding.
"Elevated levels of arsenic, boron, molybdenum and selenium are in the exposed spoils," Walters-Clark said.
Reclamation effort
In 1989, heavy erosion spurred the Forest Service to build five catch basins to trap sediment washing down from the former mine sites. By the next year, the Forest Service removed more than 6,700 cubic yards of sediment from the basins. With an estimated $2 million price tag, Forest Service officials decided against further reclamation efforts.
Seven years later, Custer National Forest officials began reviewing soils tested in 1990 in the area to qualify for the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, or CERCLA, administered by the Environmental Protection Agency. The project qualified for CERCLA, which provides reclamation funds to restore inactive hazardous waste sites.
Results from the soil analyses showed 13 bluffs as sources of hazardous substances. The hazardous materials testing greater than three times the normal levels included arsenic, molybdenum, thorium, total uranium, radium 226 and uranium 235.
As part of the CERCLA process, the Forest Service tracked Kerr-McGee as one of the businesses responsible for mining the area and abandoning eight bluffs considered hazardous.
In 1972, Kerr-McGee paid for construction of dikes and dams at two locations and moved a segment of road at Riley Pass. In 2002, Forest Service officials negotiated with Kerr-McGee to clean out the sediment ponds. Kerr-McGee has declined to help with further cleanup, and no law requires them to do so.
This year, the Forest Service plans to clean the sediment ponds and build a catch basin and diversion ditch. It will also release an engineering evaluation providing recommendations for reclamation and cost analysis later this month, Walters-Clark said.
Expected to be finalized this summer, the report will be available for public review and comment at Harding County Courthouse for at least 60 days.
The Forest Service will continue to work with representatives from Harding County and other interested groups regarding status and restoration activities in the project area.
Worried about water
Laurel Foust's ranch is three miles from the North Cave Hills and the open uranium mines there.
Like Stephens, she suspects that contaminants have reached her livestock through wind and water systems. They may also have been a factor in her husband's cancer.
Richard Foust was diagnosed with colon cancer in 1993.
He died in 1994 at age 44.
"He lived here all of his life," Foust said.
Growing up close to the rugged terrain, he spent a great deal of his life hunting, riding and exploring the hills, she said.
She acknowledges that her husband came into contact with the defoliant Agent Orange while serving in the military in Vietnam. But Foust and her children continue to drink bottled water because of her concerns about the water that comes from the taps.
"People have spent thousands of dollars on water lines and wells here so their livestock won't have to drink the water out of dams and creeks," she said.
Drinking from water sources that has runoff affects the livestock, Foust said.
The animals develop copper deficiency, which can cause spontaneous abortions in cattle.
Cattle's hair turns white after drinking the water for about six years, Foust said.
A neighbor, Randy Feist, 47, said loss of livestock production and copper deficiencies led him to suspect something was wrong with his water.
On his ranch 2-1/2 miles from the North Cave Hills, Feist had his water tested and discovered bad news.
"There's arsenic in our drainages," he said.
Before environmental and reclamation laws enacted in the '70s, mining companies were legally allowed to abandon the sites without sealing or reclamation of any kind. These abandoned sites have undergone natural erosion from 41 years of wind, rain and snow, he said.
"There were no reclamation laws when these companies did the mining," he said.
Feist said contaminants may have caused his two sisters' and a brother's health problems.
"Half of my siblings have thyroid problems. It's one of the first symptoms of radiation poisoning," Feist said.
He has also had his share of health problems. Last September, doctors removed a cancerous kidney from the father of four children.
Feist has since recovered after surgery.
But at night, when thoughts of his and his wife's relatives dying of cancer chases away sleep, he wonders about his own family.
"What am I subjecting my kids to?" he asked.
Skeptical response
South Dakota State University Extension beef specialist Trey Patterson said graying or losing color in the hides of cattle is a symptom of copper deficiency.
But he said copper deficiency in cattle is a common ailment in western South Dakota and not a symptom of radiation poisoning.
Patterson said that high concentrations of sulfur in water, molybdenum in feed and iron in water or feed or both lead to this condition.
"It is consistent with what I've seen on ranches in southwestern South Dakota," Patterson said.
State veterinarian Sam Holland, head of the South Dakota Animal Industry Board, said animals would exhibit the same symptoms as people if exposed to acute radiation — bloody stools, welts and hair loss.
But Holland said in his 18 years as assistant and state veterinarian he has never treated animals sickened from radiation poisoning because of hazardous materials.
However, it isn't the first time Holland has dealt with questions about livestock being exposed to uranium. As many as 100 uranium mines operated from the 1950s through the 1970s in the Edgemont area. Years after the mines closed, Fall River County livestock owners complained of animals sickened by runoff and contamination from those mines. None of the complaints was ever substantiated, he said.
"The anecdotal records never matched what was actually reported to us," Holland said.
No safe level
But for humans, there is no safe level of exposure to radiation, according to Diane D'Arrigo of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, a private environmental organization in Washington, D.C.
Low levels of radiation damage tissues, cells and other vital functions, causing cell death, genetic mutations, cancers, leukemia, birth defects and reproductive, immune and endocrine system disorders, D'Arrigo said.
The endocrine system includes the thyroid and pituitary glands.
"Every amount of radiation increases all these health effects," D'Arrigo said.
The organization's Web site, www.nirs.org, says long-term exposure to low levels of radiation can be more dangerous than short exposures to high levels.
D'Arrigo said federal officials who write regulations are unduly influenced by the energy industry, which gives a skewed perspective of what is acceptable.
"The science at any level will tell you any exposure is an increased risk," D'Arrigo said.
Cindy Folkers, energy and radiation spokeswoman at Nuclear Information and Resource Service, said depleted uranium broken down into small particles can be suspended in the air and inhaled or ingested.
Once absorbed into the blood stream, the particles are deposited mostly into bone and kidneys. Most of what is deposited in the kidneys cycles out in urine, but it can remain in bone for years, Folkers said.
"It collects around the DNA molecules and muscles, and the body thinks it is potassium. This is a problem," Folkers said.
She said that although companies took the uranium ore, what was left behind is still toxic and includes thoriums and heavy metals such as mercury or lead.
"Meanwhile, people stuck in the community are dying," Folkers said.
But statistics from the South Dakota Cancer Registry don't back up D'Arrigo and Folkers' claims about cancer links to exposure to hazardous contaminants from the uranium mines in Harding County, state officials said.
Barb Buhler, information officer at the South Dakota Department of Health, said sparsely populated areas such as Harding County are simply too small for statistics to prove a cause.
"The numbers are just not there," Buhler said.
She checked into Harding County cancer rates listed in the South Dakota Cancer Registry. From 1996-2001, 21 cancer cases were reported in Harding County, an average of four per year.
But Buhler said the age- adjusted cancer rate in Harding County was much lower than state and national rates.
During 2001, South Dakota had 40 cases of thyroid cancers, the cancer most associated with uranium and fallout. The age-adjusted state rate was less than the national rate, Buhler said.
But people such as Randy Feist are convinced there is a link between the local cancer victims and the uranium mines.
Feist said most people in Harding County — and especially in his neighborhood — don't expect to live without their names going into the cancer registry at some point in their lives.
"When we die, we're going to die of cancer," he said.
Contact Jomay Steen at 394-8418 or jomay.steen@rapidcityjournal.com
http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2005/05/01/news/local/top/news01.txt
Ask Pablo: Is Nuclear Power Really "Carbon Neutral?"
by Pablo Paster, San Francisco
on 09.28.09
Dear Pablo: Too often I hear politicians, lobbyists, and others advocating for nuclear power, but doesn't the processing of the fuel take a huge amount of energy? So how can they call it carbon neutral?
The short answer is that nuclear energy is not "carbon neutral." Wind and solar can also not be said to be entirely without greenhouse gas emissions. But with truly renewable energy sources such as solar and wind we are talking about a one-time "investment" of greenhouse gas emissions when the solar panels or windmills are built. The energy payback period for solar panels is less than two years according to some sources, and even less for wind.
Nuclear energy cannot be considered truly renewable because it relies on a fuel. One that is not only highly processed and refined, but also one that is not replenished by incoming solar energy or biological processes, like wind, solar, tidal, and biomass are.
Where Do Greenhouse Gas Emissions Come From In the Nuclear Power Lifecycle?
Construction
Greenhouse gas emissions in the nuclear power lifecycle begin with the construction of the nuclear power plant. Containment domes and redundant systems make the environmental impact of building a nuclear power plant much bigger than a conventional power plant. But because nuclear power plants have a significantly higher electricity output, the impact per kWh is lessened, but still significant at 2.22 tons of greenhouse gas emissions per gigawatt-hour (GWh), compared to 0.95 tons per GWh for combined-cycle natural gas.
Milling, Mining, and Enrichment
Nuclear fuel, Uranium 235 or Plutonium 239, begin as ore in a giant pit mine (75%) or an underground mine (25%). The ore has a uranium concentration around 1.5%, which needs to be further refined. Processing that includes crushing, leaching, and acid baths produces a more concentrated U3O8 called yellowcake. The U3O8 is processed into UO3, and then into UO2, which is manufactured into fuel rods for nuclear power plants. From mine to power plant, the greenhouse gas emissions can add up to another 0.683 tons of greenhouse gas emissions for every GWh.
Heavy Water Production
An important component of many types of nuclear power plants is heavy water, which is a water with a higher than normal concentration of Deuterium Monoxide D2O, which is just like water in which the Hydrogen atom has been replaced by a Deuterium atom. I was surprised to learn that the production of this heavy water is actually on of the biggest contributors to the greenhouse gas emissions in the nuclear energy lifecycle. In fact it can result in up to 9.64 tons of greenhouse gas emissions per GWh.
So, What is the "Carbon Footprint" of nuclear power?
According to my sources the entire lifecycle emissions of nuclear power are as high as 15.42 tons per GWh. But how does that compare to other electricity sources? A typical nuclear power plant is around 1 GW. Assuming 100% uptime (nuclear power plants do go offline for maintenence), a 1 GW power plant, running 8760 hours per year, will produce 8760 gigawatt-hours, or 8.76 billion kilowatt-hours per year. The average US household uses 11,232 kWh per year, so the average nuclear power plant services 780,000 households. Now, 15.42 tons per GWh translates into 15.42 kg per megawatt-hour (MWh). For comparison, California's mixture of electricity sources, including nuclear, creates 328.4 kg of CO2 per MWh and Kansas tops out the nation at 889.5 kg per MWh. The lifecycle emissions of wind power are around 10 kg per MWh.
Sure, nuclear power has lower greenhouse gas emissions than any combustion-based fuel source but it still has many other problems. We all know about the dangers of nuclear accidents and the issues around nuclear waste. If politicians were technology agnostic, removed subsidies for the coal and nuclear industry, and set a price on carbon with a national cap and trade system, there would be no debate. The free market would choose the path to the most cost effective and cleanest sources of energy which would include wind, solar, small-scale hydro, geothermal, energy efficiency, tidal, and certainly not nuclear or "clean coal."
Additional Resources on Nuclear Power:
The Next Nuclear Renaissance is Already Underway
Green Nuclear Waste?
Life Cycle Analysis of Nuclear Power
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/09/is-nuclear-power-really-carbon-neutral.php?dcitc=th_rss
on 09.28.09
Dear Pablo: Too often I hear politicians, lobbyists, and others advocating for nuclear power, but doesn't the processing of the fuel take a huge amount of energy? So how can they call it carbon neutral?
The short answer is that nuclear energy is not "carbon neutral." Wind and solar can also not be said to be entirely without greenhouse gas emissions. But with truly renewable energy sources such as solar and wind we are talking about a one-time "investment" of greenhouse gas emissions when the solar panels or windmills are built. The energy payback period for solar panels is less than two years according to some sources, and even less for wind.
Nuclear energy cannot be considered truly renewable because it relies on a fuel. One that is not only highly processed and refined, but also one that is not replenished by incoming solar energy or biological processes, like wind, solar, tidal, and biomass are.
Where Do Greenhouse Gas Emissions Come From In the Nuclear Power Lifecycle?
Construction
Greenhouse gas emissions in the nuclear power lifecycle begin with the construction of the nuclear power plant. Containment domes and redundant systems make the environmental impact of building a nuclear power plant much bigger than a conventional power plant. But because nuclear power plants have a significantly higher electricity output, the impact per kWh is lessened, but still significant at 2.22 tons of greenhouse gas emissions per gigawatt-hour (GWh), compared to 0.95 tons per GWh for combined-cycle natural gas.
Milling, Mining, and Enrichment
Nuclear fuel, Uranium 235 or Plutonium 239, begin as ore in a giant pit mine (75%) or an underground mine (25%). The ore has a uranium concentration around 1.5%, which needs to be further refined. Processing that includes crushing, leaching, and acid baths produces a more concentrated U3O8 called yellowcake. The U3O8 is processed into UO3, and then into UO2, which is manufactured into fuel rods for nuclear power plants. From mine to power plant, the greenhouse gas emissions can add up to another 0.683 tons of greenhouse gas emissions for every GWh.
Heavy Water Production
An important component of many types of nuclear power plants is heavy water, which is a water with a higher than normal concentration of Deuterium Monoxide D2O, which is just like water in which the Hydrogen atom has been replaced by a Deuterium atom. I was surprised to learn that the production of this heavy water is actually on of the biggest contributors to the greenhouse gas emissions in the nuclear energy lifecycle. In fact it can result in up to 9.64 tons of greenhouse gas emissions per GWh.
So, What is the "Carbon Footprint" of nuclear power?
According to my sources the entire lifecycle emissions of nuclear power are as high as 15.42 tons per GWh. But how does that compare to other electricity sources? A typical nuclear power plant is around 1 GW. Assuming 100% uptime (nuclear power plants do go offline for maintenence), a 1 GW power plant, running 8760 hours per year, will produce 8760 gigawatt-hours, or 8.76 billion kilowatt-hours per year. The average US household uses 11,232 kWh per year, so the average nuclear power plant services 780,000 households. Now, 15.42 tons per GWh translates into 15.42 kg per megawatt-hour (MWh). For comparison, California's mixture of electricity sources, including nuclear, creates 328.4 kg of CO2 per MWh and Kansas tops out the nation at 889.5 kg per MWh. The lifecycle emissions of wind power are around 10 kg per MWh.
Sure, nuclear power has lower greenhouse gas emissions than any combustion-based fuel source but it still has many other problems. We all know about the dangers of nuclear accidents and the issues around nuclear waste. If politicians were technology agnostic, removed subsidies for the coal and nuclear industry, and set a price on carbon with a national cap and trade system, there would be no debate. The free market would choose the path to the most cost effective and cleanest sources of energy which would include wind, solar, small-scale hydro, geothermal, energy efficiency, tidal, and certainly not nuclear or "clean coal."
Additional Resources on Nuclear Power:
The Next Nuclear Renaissance is Already Underway
Green Nuclear Waste?
Life Cycle Analysis of Nuclear Power
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/09/is-nuclear-power-really-carbon-neutral.php?dcitc=th_rss
Hanford nuclear reservation takes next step on waste cleanup
By Scott Learn, The Oregonian
September 28, 2009, 12:58PM
RICHLAND, Wash. - Workers at the Hanford nuclear reservation have removed a 1.2 million gallon basin that once held 1,100 tons of spent uranium fuel roads, the U.S. Department of Energy says, and are beginning to clean up contaminated soil underneath the basin.
Contractor CH2M Hill's Plateau Remediation Company started excavating the contaminated soil on Sunday, meeting a deadline under DOE's agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the state of Washington.
Earlier this month, workers finished years of work removing the K East Basin that once stored highly radioactive materials underwater, one of the greatest hazards at the former plutonium production site.
The basin held spent nuclear fuel from Hanford's nine reactors beneath 20 feet of water for shielding. Soil underneath the concrete basin was contaminated by leaks in the 1970s and 1990s, DOE says.
From October 2008 to early September, workers filled more than 2,000 large containers with low-level radioactive waste from inside the basin. It was disposed of in a lined landfill on site.
Cleanup of contaminated soil under the basin could be completed as early as next spring, DOE officials said, depending on the type of contamination found and the extent of its spread.
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2009/09/hanford_nuclear_reservation_ta.html
September 28, 2009, 12:58PM
RICHLAND, Wash. - Workers at the Hanford nuclear reservation have removed a 1.2 million gallon basin that once held 1,100 tons of spent uranium fuel roads, the U.S. Department of Energy says, and are beginning to clean up contaminated soil underneath the basin.
Contractor CH2M Hill's Plateau Remediation Company started excavating the contaminated soil on Sunday, meeting a deadline under DOE's agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the state of Washington.
Earlier this month, workers finished years of work removing the K East Basin that once stored highly radioactive materials underwater, one of the greatest hazards at the former plutonium production site.
The basin held spent nuclear fuel from Hanford's nine reactors beneath 20 feet of water for shielding. Soil underneath the concrete basin was contaminated by leaks in the 1970s and 1990s, DOE says.
From October 2008 to early September, workers filled more than 2,000 large containers with low-level radioactive waste from inside the basin. It was disposed of in a lined landfill on site.
Cleanup of contaminated soil under the basin could be completed as early as next spring, DOE officials said, depending on the type of contamination found and the extent of its spread.
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2009/09/hanford_nuclear_reservation_ta.html
Sunday, September 27, 2009
NUCLEAR ENERGY IN THE MIX - Consider impact first
September 27, 2009
THERE ARE at least five strong arguments against nuclear power being more than a minor part of the response to climate change (“Nuclear must be part of energy equation,’’ Op-ed):
There is no current or imminent plan for permanent disposal of high-level nuclear waste in the United States.
Addressing climate change through nuclear power means spreading nuclear technology worldwide. We already see how this leads to nuclear proliferation in places such as Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea. This also may heighten the risk of nuclear terrorism.
Unintended releases of radiation from nuclear power plants, while rare, can be catastrophic (witness Chernobyl), and may be more likely as nuclear spreads to countries with less experience with the technology than the United States.
Nuclear is not really carbon neutral. The mining and processing of uranium, the building of power plants, and their decommissioning release carbon. A full accounting must consider the complete life cycle.
Finally, but not least important, mining and processing uranium ore has had devastating consequences for workers and nearby communities, often indigenous peoples.
Before we jump on the nuclear bandwagon, we need to appraise all the impacts and consider other alternatives, such as solar and wind, that have substantially less downside.
Doug Brugge
Cambridge
The writer was co-editor of the book “The Navajo People and Uranium Mining.’’
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2009/09/27/consider_impact_first/
THERE ARE at least five strong arguments against nuclear power being more than a minor part of the response to climate change (“Nuclear must be part of energy equation,’’ Op-ed):
There is no current or imminent plan for permanent disposal of high-level nuclear waste in the United States.
Addressing climate change through nuclear power means spreading nuclear technology worldwide. We already see how this leads to nuclear proliferation in places such as Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea. This also may heighten the risk of nuclear terrorism.
Unintended releases of radiation from nuclear power plants, while rare, can be catastrophic (witness Chernobyl), and may be more likely as nuclear spreads to countries with less experience with the technology than the United States.
Nuclear is not really carbon neutral. The mining and processing of uranium, the building of power plants, and their decommissioning release carbon. A full accounting must consider the complete life cycle.
Finally, but not least important, mining and processing uranium ore has had devastating consequences for workers and nearby communities, often indigenous peoples.
Before we jump on the nuclear bandwagon, we need to appraise all the impacts and consider other alternatives, such as solar and wind, that have substantially less downside.
Doug Brugge
Cambridge
The writer was co-editor of the book “The Navajo People and Uranium Mining.’’
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2009/09/27/consider_impact_first/
A setback for the Sunday Mines
Mining company told to collect more data at site
By Matthew Beaudin
Published: Friday, September 25, 2009 8:12 AM CDT
Environmental groups won a victory against the revving uranium industry last week when the US Department of the Interior halted an increase in mining near Naturita and sent the mining company to the field for more data.
In a letter remanding a standing approval for expansion — won over the winter — Lynn E. Rust, the deputy state director in the BLM’s Energy, Land and Minerals division, told Denison Mines Corporation that “This mine permit analysis should rely on the best available data, not simply on the data submitted, if better data can readily be obtained.”
Sheep Mountain Alliance and other groups filed a complaint with the state, asking for the approval to be stricken down or, at least, remanded. They got the latter.
Mining under the initial permit is allowed to continue, “but updated monitoring should occur under that dated permit,” Rust wrote.
The initial approval gave the Canada-based Denison Mines Corporation permission to expand its existing mining operations in the Big Gypsum Valley. New activities at the Sunday Mining complex would have included the expansion of waste rock areas and the addition of vent holes along with access roads and additional drilling. It would have increased land disturbance from 80 to 100 acres.
In an earlier review of the project, Jamie Sellar-Baker, the Dolores Public Lands Office associate manager, signed a Finding of No Significant Impact and Decision Record for the project, meaning its existence will have “no significant impact” on the environment surrounding it.
The most recent letter, though, asks for more information.
“Basically, they said the groundwater and environmental baseline data they collected was not the most recent information,” Hilary White, SMA’s executive director, said. “We’re thrilled with what we did get.”
Sheep Mountain didn’t get it all it wanted, however: Ever since the Department of Energy’s decision more than two years ago to re-open the federal uranium leasing program in the Uravan Mineral Belt — which sowed the seeds of the Manhattan Project — environmental groups have been asking for a comprehensive analysis of mining’s cumulative impacts rather than case-by-case reviews. The BLM, in this case, found a wholesale review of mining’s broad effects was unnecessary.
White says the environmental groups are still trying to get such a review through different cases.
In the summer of 2007, the Department of Energy also announced its intent to renew 13 active leases in southwest Colorado for 10 years, effectively rolling out the welcome mat for mining companies.
“If we just sit idly by and leave it up to the government and public land agencies … the public safety and environment is not fully protected,” White said. ‘It’s very important that there is ongoing … large amounts of scrutiny by private parties to question the government approval process.”
http://www.telluridenews.com/articles/2009/09/26/news/doc4abc17ca0cf29638841724.txt
By Matthew Beaudin
Published: Friday, September 25, 2009 8:12 AM CDT
Environmental groups won a victory against the revving uranium industry last week when the US Department of the Interior halted an increase in mining near Naturita and sent the mining company to the field for more data.
In a letter remanding a standing approval for expansion — won over the winter — Lynn E. Rust, the deputy state director in the BLM’s Energy, Land and Minerals division, told Denison Mines Corporation that “This mine permit analysis should rely on the best available data, not simply on the data submitted, if better data can readily be obtained.”
Sheep Mountain Alliance and other groups filed a complaint with the state, asking for the approval to be stricken down or, at least, remanded. They got the latter.
Mining under the initial permit is allowed to continue, “but updated monitoring should occur under that dated permit,” Rust wrote.
The initial approval gave the Canada-based Denison Mines Corporation permission to expand its existing mining operations in the Big Gypsum Valley. New activities at the Sunday Mining complex would have included the expansion of waste rock areas and the addition of vent holes along with access roads and additional drilling. It would have increased land disturbance from 80 to 100 acres.
In an earlier review of the project, Jamie Sellar-Baker, the Dolores Public Lands Office associate manager, signed a Finding of No Significant Impact and Decision Record for the project, meaning its existence will have “no significant impact” on the environment surrounding it.
The most recent letter, though, asks for more information.
“Basically, they said the groundwater and environmental baseline data they collected was not the most recent information,” Hilary White, SMA’s executive director, said. “We’re thrilled with what we did get.”
Sheep Mountain didn’t get it all it wanted, however: Ever since the Department of Energy’s decision more than two years ago to re-open the federal uranium leasing program in the Uravan Mineral Belt — which sowed the seeds of the Manhattan Project — environmental groups have been asking for a comprehensive analysis of mining’s cumulative impacts rather than case-by-case reviews. The BLM, in this case, found a wholesale review of mining’s broad effects was unnecessary.
White says the environmental groups are still trying to get such a review through different cases.
In the summer of 2007, the Department of Energy also announced its intent to renew 13 active leases in southwest Colorado for 10 years, effectively rolling out the welcome mat for mining companies.
“If we just sit idly by and leave it up to the government and public land agencies … the public safety and environment is not fully protected,” White said. ‘It’s very important that there is ongoing … large amounts of scrutiny by private parties to question the government approval process.”
http://www.telluridenews.com/articles/2009/09/26/news/doc4abc17ca0cf29638841724.txt
Fired TVA whistle-blower faces investigation
Gail Richards says NRC trying to intimidate her for reporting lax security
By Anne Paine
THE TENNESSEAN
Gail Richards thought her nightmare was over.
In April, the http://www.tva.gov/">Tennessee Valley Authority whistle-blower reached a settlement over her firing, which came after she reported security lapses in the power producer's http://www.tva.gov/power/nuclear/index.htm"> nuclear energy program.
But now the http://www.nrc.gov/">U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission — the group that oversees TVA's nuclear facilities — has started its own investigation of Richards for potential infractions, including whether she improperly took private documents that she used to defend herself in a series of workplace allegations.
Richards said NRC investigators grilled her for several hours this month in a Washington, D.C., hotel, threatening to get the Department of Justice involved in her case — a prospect that the wife and grandmother worries could lead to prison. She and her lawyer say the NRC is guilty of the same intimidating retaliation tactics that it's supposed to protect whistle-blowers from.
"It was like I was on trial," said Richards, 62, who talked to NRC investigators on Sept. 10 after being subpoenaed."The NRC was picking up where TVA left off. I felt really intimidated. And then to have them throw the Department of Justice in my face, I just kind of lost it."
Joey Ledford, a spokesman in the NRC's Atlanta office, said he could say little about the case.
"I can confirm there's an ongoing civil matter involving Ms. Richards," Ledford said. "I can't elaborate any further.
"We thoroughly look at all allegations that come our way. We do it in a fair and evenhanded way."
Richards' attorney, Lynne Bernabei, wrote in a http://www.tennessean.com/assets/pdf/DN143270925.PDF">letter to NRC Chairman Gregory B. Jaczko earlier this week that the commission's actions are indicative of a 25-year "close relationship that is not proper between a regulator and a nuclear licensee."
Access was an issue
Richards, who worked for 18 years in TVA's human resources department, had transferred to its Nuclear Access Services in 2005, where all went smoothly at first.
There her responsibilities in TVA's Chattanooga offices included background checks and determining who would have access without an escort into secure areas of nuclear plants.
She received good reviews for her work, including a job evaluation in 2006 that included praise for her accuracy.
Things began to change, Richards said, after she reported her supervisor for allowing unauthorized people, including a cleaning crew, into secure areas.
Harassment began with false accusations that her work was riddled with errors, she said. An audit conducted by TVA in 2007 found no major errors in her work but turned up significant deficiencies in the work of others, according to her attorney's findings.
She had continued to report on her supervisor's alleged laxity and a lack of training provided to the staff who did background checks, including herself.
After being put on two performance improvement plans, Richards was fired in September 2007, though she was asked to stay on for 90 days to finish her work on a project. During a grievance hearing in the building where she worked, Richards said, she was escorted off the grounds when she provided internal documents to counter charges about her performance.
Richards reached a settlement agreement with TVA in April for an undisclosed amount of money. TVA spokesman David Mould confirmed the settlement but said he could not give details.
During the grievance hearing that was cut short, Richards said, TVA official Patrick Asendorf told her that the private documents would prompt an NRC investigation.
That investigation has come true, and another former whistle-blower said it's appalling.
"If the NRC is going to go after the same people TVA is wrongly going after, who is worrying about the safety of the plants?" said Ann Harris, who reported safety concerns in the 1980s and 1990s at TVA's Watts Bar Nuclear Plant.
Harris settled several harassment cases with TVA and now heads a group calledhttp://www.citizen.org/congress/govtaccount/articles.cfm?ID=18349"> We the People, a nuclear workers support group.
"The NRC is complicit with TVA in abusing employees," she said. "They're trying to cover their own tracks. They're trying to make Gail back down."
Bernabei said that the only effort the NRC made to look into Richards' initial charges against TVA came six months after she reported them, and only after a story about her situation was published in The Tennessean.
The NRC effort mainly amounted to a series of questions in a phone interview and attempts by NRC attorney Carolyn Evans to skew Richards' answers in a way that would cover up TVA's problems, Bernabei said.
"It is clear that this entire investigation is a vendetta by the NRC against Ms. Richards, because she had disclosed both TVA's and the NRC's cavalier attitude toward security," Bernabei wrote in her letter to the NRC.
In January of this year, an NRC letter to Richards, which referred to her comments in The Tennessean, said the agency had corroborated Richards' concern about authorized access to secure areas. She was thanked for speaking up.
NRC calls process fair
Attorney Bernabei said TVA accusations that her client had violated rules by taking private documents to a grievance hearing were among the issues that were resolved.
Richards said she thought the settlement with TVA had put her situation to rest, but then learned of the NRC's pursuit of her in July as she and her husband were mending fences on their farm in Marion County.
She received a phone call from her son saying two NRC investigators were at her home. She thought he was joking and hung up. Soon after, they came out in the field to serve her with a subpoena.
It said she would be questioned about "potential violations of NRC regulations," protected documents and other matters.
Bernabei, who has represented many TVA whistle-blowers, said that NRC seems bent on stirring up a criminal case and that the agency has been far from evenhanded.
"The NRC is essentially by its action telling all employees that they can't invoke a grievance because they could be prosecuted," Bernabei said.
The NRC and TVA say multiple procedures are in place for employees to report problems without fear of reprisal, anonymously or not.
"Our process is very fair to confidential informants," the NRC's Ledford said. "It's also very fair when it comes to people accused of wrongdoing. Things are thoroughly researched."
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20090926/NEWS02/909260333/Fired+TVA+whistle-blower+faces+investigation
By Anne Paine
THE TENNESSEAN
Gail Richards thought her nightmare was over.
In April, the http://www.tva.gov/">Tennessee Valley Authority whistle-blower reached a settlement over her firing, which came after she reported security lapses in the power producer's http://www.tva.gov/power/nuclear/index.htm"> nuclear energy program.
But now the http://www.nrc.gov/">U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission — the group that oversees TVA's nuclear facilities — has started its own investigation of Richards for potential infractions, including whether she improperly took private documents that she used to defend herself in a series of workplace allegations.
Richards said NRC investigators grilled her for several hours this month in a Washington, D.C., hotel, threatening to get the Department of Justice involved in her case — a prospect that the wife and grandmother worries could lead to prison. She and her lawyer say the NRC is guilty of the same intimidating retaliation tactics that it's supposed to protect whistle-blowers from.
"It was like I was on trial," said Richards, 62, who talked to NRC investigators on Sept. 10 after being subpoenaed."The NRC was picking up where TVA left off. I felt really intimidated. And then to have them throw the Department of Justice in my face, I just kind of lost it."
Joey Ledford, a spokesman in the NRC's Atlanta office, said he could say little about the case.
"I can confirm there's an ongoing civil matter involving Ms. Richards," Ledford said. "I can't elaborate any further.
"We thoroughly look at all allegations that come our way. We do it in a fair and evenhanded way."
Richards' attorney, Lynne Bernabei, wrote in a http://www.tennessean.com/assets/pdf/DN143270925.PDF">letter to NRC Chairman Gregory B. Jaczko earlier this week that the commission's actions are indicative of a 25-year "close relationship that is not proper between a regulator and a nuclear licensee."
Access was an issue
Richards, who worked for 18 years in TVA's human resources department, had transferred to its Nuclear Access Services in 2005, where all went smoothly at first.
There her responsibilities in TVA's Chattanooga offices included background checks and determining who would have access without an escort into secure areas of nuclear plants.
She received good reviews for her work, including a job evaluation in 2006 that included praise for her accuracy.
Things began to change, Richards said, after she reported her supervisor for allowing unauthorized people, including a cleaning crew, into secure areas.
Harassment began with false accusations that her work was riddled with errors, she said. An audit conducted by TVA in 2007 found no major errors in her work but turned up significant deficiencies in the work of others, according to her attorney's findings.
She had continued to report on her supervisor's alleged laxity and a lack of training provided to the staff who did background checks, including herself.
After being put on two performance improvement plans, Richards was fired in September 2007, though she was asked to stay on for 90 days to finish her work on a project. During a grievance hearing in the building where she worked, Richards said, she was escorted off the grounds when she provided internal documents to counter charges about her performance.
Richards reached a settlement agreement with TVA in April for an undisclosed amount of money. TVA spokesman David Mould confirmed the settlement but said he could not give details.
During the grievance hearing that was cut short, Richards said, TVA official Patrick Asendorf told her that the private documents would prompt an NRC investigation.
That investigation has come true, and another former whistle-blower said it's appalling.
"If the NRC is going to go after the same people TVA is wrongly going after, who is worrying about the safety of the plants?" said Ann Harris, who reported safety concerns in the 1980s and 1990s at TVA's Watts Bar Nuclear Plant.
Harris settled several harassment cases with TVA and now heads a group calledhttp://www.citizen.org/congress/govtaccount/articles.cfm?ID=18349"> We the People, a nuclear workers support group.
"The NRC is complicit with TVA in abusing employees," she said. "They're trying to cover their own tracks. They're trying to make Gail back down."
Bernabei said that the only effort the NRC made to look into Richards' initial charges against TVA came six months after she reported them, and only after a story about her situation was published in The Tennessean.
The NRC effort mainly amounted to a series of questions in a phone interview and attempts by NRC attorney Carolyn Evans to skew Richards' answers in a way that would cover up TVA's problems, Bernabei said.
"It is clear that this entire investigation is a vendetta by the NRC against Ms. Richards, because she had disclosed both TVA's and the NRC's cavalier attitude toward security," Bernabei wrote in her letter to the NRC.
In January of this year, an NRC letter to Richards, which referred to her comments in The Tennessean, said the agency had corroborated Richards' concern about authorized access to secure areas. She was thanked for speaking up.
NRC calls process fair
Attorney Bernabei said TVA accusations that her client had violated rules by taking private documents to a grievance hearing were among the issues that were resolved.
Richards said she thought the settlement with TVA had put her situation to rest, but then learned of the NRC's pursuit of her in July as she and her husband were mending fences on their farm in Marion County.
She received a phone call from her son saying two NRC investigators were at her home. She thought he was joking and hung up. Soon after, they came out in the field to serve her with a subpoena.
It said she would be questioned about "potential violations of NRC regulations," protected documents and other matters.
Bernabei, who has represented many TVA whistle-blowers, said that NRC seems bent on stirring up a criminal case and that the agency has been far from evenhanded.
"The NRC is essentially by its action telling all employees that they can't invoke a grievance because they could be prosecuted," Bernabei said.
The NRC and TVA say multiple procedures are in place for employees to report problems without fear of reprisal, anonymously or not.
"Our process is very fair to confidential informants," the NRC's Ledford said. "It's also very fair when it comes to people accused of wrongdoing. Things are thoroughly researched."
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20090926/NEWS02/909260333/Fired+TVA+whistle-blower+faces+investigation
European Expert: US policymakers wrong about French experience with nuclear power
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 15, 2009
European Expert: U.S. Policymakers Are "As Wrong As They Can Be" About the French Experience With Nuclear Power
Marignac Says "Far From Being a Model, France Should be a Powerful Cautionary Tale for the U.S. about the Folly of a Headlong Rush into More Nuclear Power".
WASHINGTON, D.C. U.S. policy makers are in the grips of "dangerous and costly illusions" if they think that France is a model showing how nuclear power could be implemented aggressively in the United States, according to Yves Marignac, a leading international consultant on nuclear energy issues and the executive director of the energy information agency WISE-Paris.
In visits this week with state and federal officials, Marignac is debunking the myth of the so-called "French nuclear model" that is being touted as a blueprint for the revival of the embattled nuclear power industry in the U.S. His visit comes at a particular key time, as the U.S. Senate considers additional subsidies to the nuclear industry in its version of pending climate legislation and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) seeks public comment on weakening the rules for loan-guarantee bailouts of proposed new reactors.
Yves Marignac said: "I am at a loss to understand how the United States could be so far off the mark in its understanding of the French experience with nuclear power. The so-called 'success story' of the French nuclear program, which is being promoted so assiduously by the U.S. nuclear industry, is a complete disconnect with the stark reality of the 50-year history of rising costs, steadily worsening delays, technological dead-ends, failed industrial challenges and planning mistakes. The United States could make few worse mistakes than embracing France's sorry nuclear legacy. If American policymakers are going to weigh the example of France, they need to get the facts instead of settling for the fantasy being sold to them by the US nuclear industry."
In his remarks today, Marignac noted the following key problems:
• French nuclear technology is deeply flawed. The French EPR Reactor is a new reactor design developed by the company Areva in cooperation with the German firm Siemens. Serious doubts have been raised about the safety and cost of the EPR. Experience in the construction at the two sites where EPRs are being built, in Finland (Olkiluoto 3) and France (Flamanville 3), has revealed serious and fundamental weaknesses in design, problems during construction phases and soaring costs. British and Finnish nuclear regulators have also raised significant safety questions, in particular about the computerized command and control system proposed for these reactors.
• French nuclear reactor construction delays are getting steadily worse, not better. Alongside increasing costs, construction times have proven to be problematic. The last four reactors that were built in France, two units in Chooz and two in Civaux, were only connected on average 10.5 years after construction work began, and subsequent safety problems caused further delays. Their official industrial service only started in 2000 and 2002 respectively, some 15.5 and 12.5 years after construction started.
• French nuclear reactor costs are just as out of control as they are in the U.S. The EPR has been promoted as a technology that makes nuclear energy cheaper and more competitive. When the decision was made to build an EPR in Finland in 2002, the government promised that it would cost Euro 2.5 billion and take only four years to build. The final contract, three years later, put the price at Euro 3 billion and construction time was set at 4.5 years. Since construction began in summer 2005, a variety of technical problems have led to a three and a half-year delay, extending the construction period to at least 7 years. The currently estimated additional cost is Euro 2.3 billion, raising the current price tag to Euro 5.3 billion, almost 75 percent over the initial estimate. More problems, delays and cost overruns are likely to occur before the project is completed. In September 2008, Nucleonics Week quoted an Areva official, saying that Euro 4.5 billion will be a minimum price for any new EPR — almost twice the initial estimate. The other EPR being built in Flamanville, France, was approved in 2005 on the basis of a 2.8 c€/kWh cost estimate, which was increased by EDF in December 2008 to 5.4 c€/kWh, although EDF itself estimated that it should be below 4.6 c€/kWh to guarantee profitability.
• Nuclear power in France has not promoted energy independence. Nuclear power in France is a major presence, providing 76 percent of electricity produced in 2008. However, electricity accounted for only 20.7 percent of the final energy consumption in France that year. Excluding electricity exports, the overall contribution of nuclear power to France's final energy consumption is only in the range of 14 percent. If the real aim of the nuclear programme was to reduce oil dependence, then it has clearly failed in its objectives. Over 70 percent of France's final energy is provided by fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal), with oil accounting for 49 percent of the energy consumption in 2007. Nuclear power cannot provide energy security, as it only has a marginal effect upon oil consumption, which is dominated by the transport sector. France consumes more oil per capita than the European average, and despite its long-term objective to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by three-quarters, it seems incapable of bucking an upward trend. This is due largely to the weak policies on energy efficiency and new energy sources, influenced by the lock-in of nuclear power.
• French nuclear power is not "safer" ... and the nation does not have a long term solution to waste storage. The operators of the 200 nuclear facilities in France declare a very large number of events — considered relevant for safety — every year. EDF alone declares between 10,000 and 12,000, of which 700 to 800 are deemed "incidents" or "significant events". Large amounts of radioactive waste arise from the French nuclear programme. In total, close to 890,000 cubic meters (m3) of radioactive waste had been produced by the end of 2004. Almost 40 percent of this amount is linked to reprocessing. This total does not account for some 12,000 m3 of waste from the reprocessing plant in Marcoule that was dumped into the sea in 1967 and 1969. While reprocessing is presented as a means to reduce the volume of highly-radioactive long-lived wastes in final disposal, it actually increases the complexity of waste management, and thereby the danger for the population and environment. Reprocessing comes with numerous extra nuclear facilities and transports, each creating extra safety risks. But also 'normal' radiation exposure arising from routine operations increases, for example by the radioactive discharges of La Hague reprocessing plants, with authorized discharge levels up to 1000 times higher than those applying to the nearby Flamanville nuclear power station. And even France, supposedly the country of nuclear expertise, has no long-term solution for its nuclear wastes.
• Nuclear power in France is not popular. The pursuit of the nuclear program in France is a permanently undemocratic choice. Contrary to the image presented in the United States, the French population is no more in favor of nuclear power than the European average — indeed a majority is opposed to the building of new plants. Surveys repeatedly show that the public lacks confidence in the institutional promoters of nuclear power.
• The "nationalized" nuclear model in France is completely incompatible with the market-driven U.S. In 2001, Compagnie Générale des Matières Nucléaires (Cogema — General Company for Nuclear Materials), a private company established in 1976, merged with Framatome, the nuclear reactor builder, to create the Areva group. Currently, 96 percent of the share capital of the Areva group is held by the French state and large French industries. Electricité de France (EDF), the French electric utility, was established in 1946 through nationalization of a number of state and private companies. First and foremost responsible for overseeing development of the electricity supply across France, today EDF operates all 59 nuclear reactors in service in France. EDF was partly privatized in 2005-2006, but the French government still retains control 84.9 percent of its shares.
• State ownership of French nuclear power means that the true costs are hidden. Though largely in an indirect fashion, French taxpayers bear a large part of the nuclear costs. The French government, as both the regulator of electricity prices and the owner of the utility EDF, has been able to overcome the main obstacle to nuclear power by planning, at liberty, the return of capital costs from nuclear investments. French public funding is widely provided to the nuclear industry, from financing extensive R&D programs to guaranteeing low-rate loans. Official cost estimates for nuclear power tend to neglect or downplay hidden costs from the fuel cycle, waste management, decommissioning of nuclear facilities, security, infrastructural changes and state guarantees for liabilities. All in all, nuclear power is highly subsidized by the French taxpayer.
ABOUT YVES MARIGNAC
Yves Marignac is executive director of the energy information agency WISE-Paris, which he joined in 1997, after four years shared between academic research at Paris-XI University and applied studies in the French nuclear institute CEA and the nuclear company STMI. His consultant work covers a wide range of nuclear issues for various institutional bodies and NGOs at the national and international level. In 1999-2000, Marignac participated in the economic evaluation of the nuclear option commissioned by French Prime Minister (known as Charpin-Dessus-Pellat report), and in 2001 he was a co-author of a report to the European Parliament's Scientific and Technological Option Assessment (STOA) Panel on reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. In 2005, he acted as consultant to the Commission that organized the institutional public debate on the project of the new French reactor, EPR (Flamanville-3).
Marignac is the author or co-author of a number of books and other publications, including Nuclear Power, the Great Illusion - Promises, Setbacks and Threats (October 2008) and Spent Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing in France (April 2008).
CONTACT: Ailis Aaron Wolf, (703) 276-3265 or aawolf@hastingsgroup.com.
EDITOR'S NOTE: A streaming audio replay of the news event is available on the Web at http://www.nuclearbailout.org.
September 15, 2009
European Expert: U.S. Policymakers Are "As Wrong As They Can Be" About the French Experience With Nuclear Power
Marignac Says "Far From Being a Model, France Should be a Powerful Cautionary Tale for the U.S. about the Folly of a Headlong Rush into More Nuclear Power".
WASHINGTON, D.C. U.S. policy makers are in the grips of "dangerous and costly illusions" if they think that France is a model showing how nuclear power could be implemented aggressively in the United States, according to Yves Marignac, a leading international consultant on nuclear energy issues and the executive director of the energy information agency WISE-Paris.
In visits this week with state and federal officials, Marignac is debunking the myth of the so-called "French nuclear model" that is being touted as a blueprint for the revival of the embattled nuclear power industry in the U.S. His visit comes at a particular key time, as the U.S. Senate considers additional subsidies to the nuclear industry in its version of pending climate legislation and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) seeks public comment on weakening the rules for loan-guarantee bailouts of proposed new reactors.
Yves Marignac said: "I am at a loss to understand how the United States could be so far off the mark in its understanding of the French experience with nuclear power. The so-called 'success story' of the French nuclear program, which is being promoted so assiduously by the U.S. nuclear industry, is a complete disconnect with the stark reality of the 50-year history of rising costs, steadily worsening delays, technological dead-ends, failed industrial challenges and planning mistakes. The United States could make few worse mistakes than embracing France's sorry nuclear legacy. If American policymakers are going to weigh the example of France, they need to get the facts instead of settling for the fantasy being sold to them by the US nuclear industry."
In his remarks today, Marignac noted the following key problems:
• French nuclear technology is deeply flawed. The French EPR Reactor is a new reactor design developed by the company Areva in cooperation with the German firm Siemens. Serious doubts have been raised about the safety and cost of the EPR. Experience in the construction at the two sites where EPRs are being built, in Finland (Olkiluoto 3) and France (Flamanville 3), has revealed serious and fundamental weaknesses in design, problems during construction phases and soaring costs. British and Finnish nuclear regulators have also raised significant safety questions, in particular about the computerized command and control system proposed for these reactors.
• French nuclear reactor construction delays are getting steadily worse, not better. Alongside increasing costs, construction times have proven to be problematic. The last four reactors that were built in France, two units in Chooz and two in Civaux, were only connected on average 10.5 years after construction work began, and subsequent safety problems caused further delays. Their official industrial service only started in 2000 and 2002 respectively, some 15.5 and 12.5 years after construction started.
• French nuclear reactor costs are just as out of control as they are in the U.S. The EPR has been promoted as a technology that makes nuclear energy cheaper and more competitive. When the decision was made to build an EPR in Finland in 2002, the government promised that it would cost Euro 2.5 billion and take only four years to build. The final contract, three years later, put the price at Euro 3 billion and construction time was set at 4.5 years. Since construction began in summer 2005, a variety of technical problems have led to a three and a half-year delay, extending the construction period to at least 7 years. The currently estimated additional cost is Euro 2.3 billion, raising the current price tag to Euro 5.3 billion, almost 75 percent over the initial estimate. More problems, delays and cost overruns are likely to occur before the project is completed. In September 2008, Nucleonics Week quoted an Areva official, saying that Euro 4.5 billion will be a minimum price for any new EPR — almost twice the initial estimate. The other EPR being built in Flamanville, France, was approved in 2005 on the basis of a 2.8 c€/kWh cost estimate, which was increased by EDF in December 2008 to 5.4 c€/kWh, although EDF itself estimated that it should be below 4.6 c€/kWh to guarantee profitability.
• Nuclear power in France has not promoted energy independence. Nuclear power in France is a major presence, providing 76 percent of electricity produced in 2008. However, electricity accounted for only 20.7 percent of the final energy consumption in France that year. Excluding electricity exports, the overall contribution of nuclear power to France's final energy consumption is only in the range of 14 percent. If the real aim of the nuclear programme was to reduce oil dependence, then it has clearly failed in its objectives. Over 70 percent of France's final energy is provided by fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal), with oil accounting for 49 percent of the energy consumption in 2007. Nuclear power cannot provide energy security, as it only has a marginal effect upon oil consumption, which is dominated by the transport sector. France consumes more oil per capita than the European average, and despite its long-term objective to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by three-quarters, it seems incapable of bucking an upward trend. This is due largely to the weak policies on energy efficiency and new energy sources, influenced by the lock-in of nuclear power.
• French nuclear power is not "safer" ... and the nation does not have a long term solution to waste storage. The operators of the 200 nuclear facilities in France declare a very large number of events — considered relevant for safety — every year. EDF alone declares between 10,000 and 12,000, of which 700 to 800 are deemed "incidents" or "significant events". Large amounts of radioactive waste arise from the French nuclear programme. In total, close to 890,000 cubic meters (m3) of radioactive waste had been produced by the end of 2004. Almost 40 percent of this amount is linked to reprocessing. This total does not account for some 12,000 m3 of waste from the reprocessing plant in Marcoule that was dumped into the sea in 1967 and 1969. While reprocessing is presented as a means to reduce the volume of highly-radioactive long-lived wastes in final disposal, it actually increases the complexity of waste management, and thereby the danger for the population and environment. Reprocessing comes with numerous extra nuclear facilities and transports, each creating extra safety risks. But also 'normal' radiation exposure arising from routine operations increases, for example by the radioactive discharges of La Hague reprocessing plants, with authorized discharge levels up to 1000 times higher than those applying to the nearby Flamanville nuclear power station. And even France, supposedly the country of nuclear expertise, has no long-term solution for its nuclear wastes.
• Nuclear power in France is not popular. The pursuit of the nuclear program in France is a permanently undemocratic choice. Contrary to the image presented in the United States, the French population is no more in favor of nuclear power than the European average — indeed a majority is opposed to the building of new plants. Surveys repeatedly show that the public lacks confidence in the institutional promoters of nuclear power.
• The "nationalized" nuclear model in France is completely incompatible with the market-driven U.S. In 2001, Compagnie Générale des Matières Nucléaires (Cogema — General Company for Nuclear Materials), a private company established in 1976, merged with Framatome, the nuclear reactor builder, to create the Areva group. Currently, 96 percent of the share capital of the Areva group is held by the French state and large French industries. Electricité de France (EDF), the French electric utility, was established in 1946 through nationalization of a number of state and private companies. First and foremost responsible for overseeing development of the electricity supply across France, today EDF operates all 59 nuclear reactors in service in France. EDF was partly privatized in 2005-2006, but the French government still retains control 84.9 percent of its shares.
• State ownership of French nuclear power means that the true costs are hidden. Though largely in an indirect fashion, French taxpayers bear a large part of the nuclear costs. The French government, as both the regulator of electricity prices and the owner of the utility EDF, has been able to overcome the main obstacle to nuclear power by planning, at liberty, the return of capital costs from nuclear investments. French public funding is widely provided to the nuclear industry, from financing extensive R&D programs to guaranteeing low-rate loans. Official cost estimates for nuclear power tend to neglect or downplay hidden costs from the fuel cycle, waste management, decommissioning of nuclear facilities, security, infrastructural changes and state guarantees for liabilities. All in all, nuclear power is highly subsidized by the French taxpayer.
ABOUT YVES MARIGNAC
Yves Marignac is executive director of the energy information agency WISE-Paris, which he joined in 1997, after four years shared between academic research at Paris-XI University and applied studies in the French nuclear institute CEA and the nuclear company STMI. His consultant work covers a wide range of nuclear issues for various institutional bodies and NGOs at the national and international level. In 1999-2000, Marignac participated in the economic evaluation of the nuclear option commissioned by French Prime Minister (known as Charpin-Dessus-Pellat report), and in 2001 he was a co-author of a report to the European Parliament's Scientific and Technological Option Assessment (STOA) Panel on reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. In 2005, he acted as consultant to the Commission that organized the institutional public debate on the project of the new French reactor, EPR (Flamanville-3).
Marignac is the author or co-author of a number of books and other publications, including Nuclear Power, the Great Illusion - Promises, Setbacks and Threats (October 2008) and Spent Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing in France (April 2008).
CONTACT: Ailis Aaron Wolf, (703) 276-3265 or aawolf@hastingsgroup.com.
EDITOR'S NOTE: A streaming audio replay of the news event is available on the Web at http://www.nuclearbailout.org.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
FILMMAKER DAVID BRADBURY: RED DUST DUMP ORIGINATING AT WOOMERA IS GRAVE CONCERN FOR PUBLIC HEALTH (uranium mining)
70 million tonnes per year of radioactive tailings finely pulverised into dust size particles are concerning with dust storms like this one, a frequent occurance!
FILMMAKER DAVID BRADBURY: RED DUST DUMP ORIGINATING AT WOOMERA IS GRAVE CONCERN FOR PUBLIC HEALTH
Posted on September 25, 2009 by Coober Pedy Regional Times
Round two of fierce dust from the Woomera-Roxby Downs area hits Coober Pedy on its way to the east coast of Australia again today !
Posted on September 25, 2009 by Coober Pedy Regional Times
Round two of fierce dust from the Woomera-Roxby Downs area hits Coober Pedy on its way to the east coast of Australia again today !
“70 million tonnes of radioactive tailings to be dumped at the Roxby mine site each year without evidence of dust control is cause for concern”, says David Bradbury
A vigorous front moving across South Australia for the second day this week, with west to southwest winds averaging 60-70 km/h are with damaging wind gusts in excess of 90 km/h are causing grave concerns for public health.
Fierce dust storms which nearly blotted out Sydney has reached New Zealand The accumulation of dust which built momentum as violent winds carried it across Australia, originated at Woomera in the South Australian western desert also the site of the Maralinga Nuclear bomb tests where lethal plutonium from failed cleanup attempts will stay active for a quarter of a million years.
Woomera is also situated next to the BHP Billiton Olympic Dam uranium mine currently hoping to expand its operations.
Filmmaker David Bradbury speaks of concerns of dust storms from South Australian uranium mining areas impacting on the health of Australians.
Academy Award nominated documentary maker David Bradbury has spoken out, raising public concerns of the red dust dumped onto east coast cities this week as concerning with BHP Billiton proposing to turn South Australia’s Olympic Dam uranium mine into an open-cut mine larger than Adelaide.
Minister for Mines and energy, Paul Holloway says that dust is a problem, which will need to be looked into at the Olympic Dam mine.
BHP Billiton have refused to discuss “in public,” an issue which has the potential to effect the health of the entire population of Australia.
The public are also wondering with the proposed life of the mine, where the water will come from to contain radioactive tailings of such magnitude.
David Bradbury is a former ABC trained radio journalist and a respected internationally recognised filmmaker with two Oscar nominations and a host of other prizes to his credit plus broadcasting docos around the world for the last 30 years.
David who has credits of four documentaries on nuclear issues says BHP Billiton’s environmental impact study which reflects that the 70 million tonnes of radioactive tailings to be dumped at the Roxby minesite each year without evidence of dust control, is alarming particularly in light of the growing cancer related illnesses across the country. “We are talking about alpha radiation which these tailings contain and are known to be carcinogenic to humans and animals”, David said.
David’s concern is that with the open-cut mine expansion that BHP Billiton is trying to achieve permission from state and federal governments to go ahead, with radioactive tailings left behind to blow over the heavily populated cities of the rest of Australia.
Bradbury whose humanitarian work had involved raising awareness of the many harmful facets of the uranium process, says “The level of contamination brought to the surface and just dumped there by BHP Billiton every year for the life of the mine – up to 100 years – will be one of the, if not THE most environmentally criminal act of any mining company in the history of Australia”.
“It is not a melodramatic statement when you know what I know of the science of it, the radical impact and triggering of cancers at low levels of radiation once they enter the body and what they do to the human (or for that matter, any species…) once in the cell and its impact on the DNA”, said the filmmaker.
David continues: “This fact is not appreciated by our pollies, or the public health authorities who are behind the eight ball of what scientists without a similar voice in their media in Europe, Japan and Canada have been trying to point out for the last decade and more. We´re living under a false and outdated regimen of what is considered by public health authorities to be ´a safe level of radiation´our human bodies can withstand.
The mainstream media have had the game of misinformation all stitched up in not researching and challenging that which concerns the public on the health of generations to come. The Olympic Dam expansion is a monumental disaster if allowed to go ahead and will wash over the face of Australia forever.
David who has credits of four documentaries on nuclear issues says BHP Billiton’s environmental impact study which reflects that the 70 million tonnes of radioactive tailings to be dumped at the Roxby minesite each year without evidence of dust control, is alarming particularly in light of the growing cancer related illnesses across the country. “We are talking about alpha radiation which these tailings contain and are known to be carcinogenic to humans and animals”, David said.
David’s concern is that with the open-cut mine expansion that BHP Billiton is trying to achieve permission from state and federal governments to go ahead, with radioactive tailings left behind to blow over the heavily populated cities of the rest of Australia.
Bradbury whose humanitarian work had involved raising awareness of the many harmful facets of the uranium process, says “The level of contamination brought to the surface and just dumped there by BHP Billiton every year for the life of the mine – up to 100 years – will be one of the, if not THE most environmentally criminal act of any mining company in the history of Australia”.
“It is not a melodramatic statement when you know what I know of the science of it, the radical impact and triggering of cancers at low levels of radiation once they enter the body and what they do to the human (or for that matter, any species…) once in the cell and its impact on the DNA”, said the filmmaker.
David continues: “This fact is not appreciated by our pollies, or the public health authorities who are behind the eight ball of what scientists without a similar voice in their media in Europe, Japan and Canada have been trying to point out for the last decade and more. We´re living under a false and outdated regimen of what is considered by public health authorities to be ´a safe level of radiation´our human bodies can withstand.
The mainstream media have had the game of misinformation all stitched up in not researching and challenging that which concerns the public on the health of generations to come. The Olympic Dam expansion is a monumental disaster if allowed to go ahead and will wash over the face of Australia forever.
Those tailings are radioactive for 4.5 billion years. Most of the radioactivity in the tailings stays in the fine dust once they extract the copper, gold and uranium.
It is only 1000 kms to Melbourne as the crow flies. 1350 km to Sydney as the wind blows. And that is the direction Easterly – that the prevailing winds blow from Roxby.
Seventy million tonnes each year dug out of the huge hole in the ground and dumped there for the next 100 years once they take out the valuable minerals. Radioactive polonium, thorium, radium, bismuth, radioactive lead…and what uranium they can´t finally extract is all left behind in the tailings and will be just dumped there according to BHPB´s hitherto released plans for ´environmental protection´.
Those radioactive heavy metals (above) are always found in association with uranium, are not commercially viable or of any monetary use to BHP. That is why they just want to dump them at the mine´s surface. Too huge a volume and people´s awareness on scarcity of water such that they will not be able to dump them under water in holding dams as they do now, to leach into the surrounding water table.
Then there is the release of radon gas into the surface of the air when they mine uranium, particularly open cut mine. Radon gas released from the dug up uranium is seven times heavier than air so it does not evaporate into ´space´ but hugs the earth and attaches itself to water molecules (which we or livestock or native animals drink), can be breathed into our lungs like the radioactive dust particles from the tailings thus triggering cancers and birth defects or attaches itself to growing crops and vegetation which we also eat.
Radon gas has a radioactive half life of 3.8 days (when airborne) so in that half life it can easily blow on a light wind of 20 kph to Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane etc. People don´t even know they are breathing it in because it is odourless. So the triggering of cancers begins… which doesn´t come out for 20 years or more. And how can you shaft home responsibility to the board of BHP and its CEO then who will be long gone or moved onto greener pastures in that time?
Dust from a South Australian dust storm reaches parts of New Zealand.
In kids radon or radioactive particles inhaled or eaten dust has a rapid impact, with maybe five years to trigger childhood or teen cancers because their cells are dividing more rapidly than adults who have stopped growing.
So the mutations in the cell from either the radioactive dust inhaled, eaten or from the radon gas alpha particle inhalation, ingestion etc precipitates the cancers faster in a child in the womb, young kids or teenagers because the cells are dividing faster and the mutated cells are created and multiply faster in the young.
That´s what cancer is – mutated cells which multiply and form tumours as a result which then take over the body and finally destroy it”.
The South Australian Bureau of meteorology announced that gusts around 100 km/h have been observed at Coles Point and Woomera with a number of other locations such as Broken Hill reporting severe dust and others reporting gusts near 90 km/h.
Flinders residents stayed indoors watching the eerie orange dust engulf their homes
The State Emergency Service advises that people should:
* Move vehicles under cover or away from trees;
* Secure or put away loose items around your property.
* Stay indoors, away from windows, while conditions are severe.
The Australian: “– the longest dust storm in living memory, red desert sands delivering a stinging slap to the face from dawn until close to midnight as they picked up small pebbles from the opal-mined ground.
It is believed it originally lifted off around Maralinga, site of the British atomic tests in the 1950s and 1960s.
But locals like council worker Duncan McLaren went about their daily business and thought little of it, until a day later when they saw images of the harbour city 2000km away, covered in the same red haze which had engulfed their town……………….”
http://cooberpedyregionaltimes.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/filmmaker-david-bradbury-red-dust-dump-originating-at-woomera-is-grave-concern-for-public-health/
It's back: more dust blankets east coast (Australia )
Posted Sat Sep 26, 2009 5:07am AEST
Updated Sat Sep 26, 2009 12:24pm AEST
The second dust storm in a week has blanketed much of New South Wales and Queensland's south-west.
High winds have blown huge dust clouds from South Australia since yesterday afternoon.
In Cunnumulla, in Queensland's south-west, visibility is down to 500 metres, but the weather bureau says the storm is expected to disperse as it heads east.
Flights are not expected to be affected.
The dust is also sweeping through parts of western and central New South Wales, including Sydney.
But forecasters say the impact on the NSW capital is unlikely to be as bad as the storm on Wednesday, which bathed the city in red, orange and yellow hues.
Visibility has been reduced and is likely to stay that way for a couple of hours, but the area of dust seems much smaller, a Bureau of Meteorology spokesman said.
Health authorities are warning people to exercise caution and monitor weather reports.
They are advising asthmatics to avoid exercising outdoors in the morning.
At Young in New South Wales' south-west, resident BJ Wyse says he can taste the dust in his house.
"Standing outside my place now looking at the clock tower, it's about half a kilometre away. You can just see it, with the thickness of it, you can just see the town lights," he said.
"It's just like a red glow. I just talked to a friend of mine in Cootamundra and it's going through there as well, so yep, it's back again."
On Wednesday, Sydney awoke to an eerie red dawn after strong north-westerly winds dumped thousands of tonnes of dust on the harbour city, the Hunter Valley, Wollongong and the state's west.
Hours later the dust cleared from Sydney and arrived in Brisbane, hampering firefighting efforts in southern Queensland by temporarily grounding water bombing helicopters.
The poor visibility affected transport across the affected regions, slowing traffic and causing long delays at airports.
Emergency services received hundreds of phone calls from people with breathing difficulties.
The New South Wales Health Department is advising residents to check the Environment and Climate Change website for health warnings and to monitor weather reports.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/26/2697261.htm?WT.mc_id=newsmail
It is only 1000 kms to Melbourne as the crow flies. 1350 km to Sydney as the wind blows. And that is the direction Easterly – that the prevailing winds blow from Roxby.
Seventy million tonnes each year dug out of the huge hole in the ground and dumped there for the next 100 years once they take out the valuable minerals. Radioactive polonium, thorium, radium, bismuth, radioactive lead…and what uranium they can´t finally extract is all left behind in the tailings and will be just dumped there according to BHPB´s hitherto released plans for ´environmental protection´.
Those radioactive heavy metals (above) are always found in association with uranium, are not commercially viable or of any monetary use to BHP. That is why they just want to dump them at the mine´s surface. Too huge a volume and people´s awareness on scarcity of water such that they will not be able to dump them under water in holding dams as they do now, to leach into the surrounding water table.
Then there is the release of radon gas into the surface of the air when they mine uranium, particularly open cut mine. Radon gas released from the dug up uranium is seven times heavier than air so it does not evaporate into ´space´ but hugs the earth and attaches itself to water molecules (which we or livestock or native animals drink), can be breathed into our lungs like the radioactive dust particles from the tailings thus triggering cancers and birth defects or attaches itself to growing crops and vegetation which we also eat.
Radon gas has a radioactive half life of 3.8 days (when airborne) so in that half life it can easily blow on a light wind of 20 kph to Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane etc. People don´t even know they are breathing it in because it is odourless. So the triggering of cancers begins… which doesn´t come out for 20 years or more. And how can you shaft home responsibility to the board of BHP and its CEO then who will be long gone or moved onto greener pastures in that time?
Dust from a South Australian dust storm reaches parts of New Zealand.
In kids radon or radioactive particles inhaled or eaten dust has a rapid impact, with maybe five years to trigger childhood or teen cancers because their cells are dividing more rapidly than adults who have stopped growing.
So the mutations in the cell from either the radioactive dust inhaled, eaten or from the radon gas alpha particle inhalation, ingestion etc precipitates the cancers faster in a child in the womb, young kids or teenagers because the cells are dividing faster and the mutated cells are created and multiply faster in the young.
That´s what cancer is – mutated cells which multiply and form tumours as a result which then take over the body and finally destroy it”.
The South Australian Bureau of meteorology announced that gusts around 100 km/h have been observed at Coles Point and Woomera with a number of other locations such as Broken Hill reporting severe dust and others reporting gusts near 90 km/h.
Flinders residents stayed indoors watching the eerie orange dust engulf their homes
The State Emergency Service advises that people should:
* Move vehicles under cover or away from trees;
* Secure or put away loose items around your property.
* Stay indoors, away from windows, while conditions are severe.
The Australian: “– the longest dust storm in living memory, red desert sands delivering a stinging slap to the face from dawn until close to midnight as they picked up small pebbles from the opal-mined ground.
It is believed it originally lifted off around Maralinga, site of the British atomic tests in the 1950s and 1960s.
But locals like council worker Duncan McLaren went about their daily business and thought little of it, until a day later when they saw images of the harbour city 2000km away, covered in the same red haze which had engulfed their town……………….”
http://cooberpedyregionaltimes.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/filmmaker-david-bradbury-red-dust-dump-originating-at-woomera-is-grave-concern-for-public-health/
It's back: more dust blankets east coast (Australia )
Posted Sat Sep 26, 2009 5:07am AEST
Updated Sat Sep 26, 2009 12:24pm AEST
The second dust storm in a week has blanketed much of New South Wales and Queensland's south-west.
High winds have blown huge dust clouds from South Australia since yesterday afternoon.
In Cunnumulla, in Queensland's south-west, visibility is down to 500 metres, but the weather bureau says the storm is expected to disperse as it heads east.
Flights are not expected to be affected.
The dust is also sweeping through parts of western and central New South Wales, including Sydney.
But forecasters say the impact on the NSW capital is unlikely to be as bad as the storm on Wednesday, which bathed the city in red, orange and yellow hues.
Visibility has been reduced and is likely to stay that way for a couple of hours, but the area of dust seems much smaller, a Bureau of Meteorology spokesman said.
Health authorities are warning people to exercise caution and monitor weather reports.
They are advising asthmatics to avoid exercising outdoors in the morning.
At Young in New South Wales' south-west, resident BJ Wyse says he can taste the dust in his house.
"Standing outside my place now looking at the clock tower, it's about half a kilometre away. You can just see it, with the thickness of it, you can just see the town lights," he said.
"It's just like a red glow. I just talked to a friend of mine in Cootamundra and it's going through there as well, so yep, it's back again."
On Wednesday, Sydney awoke to an eerie red dawn after strong north-westerly winds dumped thousands of tonnes of dust on the harbour city, the Hunter Valley, Wollongong and the state's west.
Hours later the dust cleared from Sydney and arrived in Brisbane, hampering firefighting efforts in southern Queensland by temporarily grounding water bombing helicopters.
The poor visibility affected transport across the affected regions, slowing traffic and causing long delays at airports.
Emergency services received hundreds of phone calls from people with breathing difficulties.
The New South Wales Health Department is advising residents to check the Environment and Climate Change website for health warnings and to monitor weather reports.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/26/2697261.htm?WT.mc_id=newsmail
Hashima Island: Japan's Ghost Island (former coal mine)
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Someone sent me some lyrics to a song about an interesting island in Japan. At first, I dismissed it as not so interesting, but after about 10 minutes of snooping around, I thought it was pretty damn amazing!
Hashima Island; commonly called Gunkanjima (軍艦島; meaning "Battleship Island") is one among 505 uninhabited islands in the Nagasaki Prefecture about 15 kilometers from Nagasaki itself. The island was populated from 1887 to 1974 as a coal mining facility. The island's most notable features are the abandoned concrete buildings and the sea wall surrounding it. It has been administered as part of Nagasaki, Nagasaki since 2005.
"Battleship Island" is an English translation of the Japanese nickname for Hashima Island, Gunkanjima (gunkan meaning "battleship", jima being the rendaku form of shima, meaning "island"). The island's nickname came from its apparent resemblance to the Japanese battleship Tosa due to its high seawalls. It also is known as the Ghost Island. It is known for its coal mines and their operation during the industrialization of Japan. Mitsubishi bought the island in 1890 and began the project, the aim of which was retrieving coal from the bottom of the sea. They built Japan's first large concrete building, a block of apartments in 1916 to accommodate their burgeoning ranks of workers (many of whom were forcibly recruited labourers from other parts of Asia), and to protect against typhoon destruction. Wikipedia...
In 1959, its population density was 835 people per hectare (83,500 people/km2) for the whole island, or 1,391 per hectare (139,100 people/km2) for the residential district, the highest population density ever recorded worldwide. As petroleum replaced coal in Japan in the 1960s, coal mines began shutting down all over the country, and Hashima's mines were no exception. Mitsubishi officially announced the closing of the mine in 1974, and today it is empty and bare, which is why it's called the Ghost Island. Travel to Hashima was re-opened on April 22, 2009 after more than 20 years of closure.
Visiting the Island Today!
The island is increasingly gaining international attention not only as one of the modern international heritages in the region, but also as the housing complex remnants in the years from Taisho Era to Showa Era. Moreover, the island has become the frequent subject of a discussion among enthusiasts for ruins.
Since the abandoned island has not been maintained, several buildings have already collapsed. Other existing buildings are subject to breakage. In this regard, however, certain collapsed exterior walls have been restored with concrete. While the island was owned by Mitsubishi Material up until 2002, it was voluntarily transferred to Takashima town. Currently, Nagasaki City possesses the island. A small portion of the island was re-opened for tourism on April 22nd, 2009. A full reopening of the island would require an enormous amount of money to make the premises safe, due to the aging of the buildings.
Pennsylvania Orders Cabot Oil and Gas to Stop Fracturing in Troubled County
A Cabot Oil & Gas sign in Susquehanna County, Pa., taken last February. (Abrahm Lustgarten/ProPublica)
by Abrahm Lustgarten, ProPublica - September 25, 2009 12:39 pm EDT
After three chemical spills [1] in the past nine days, and following a history of environmental problems over the last year [2], Pennsylvania officials have ordered Cabot Oil and Gas, one of the most active natural gas companies in the state, to stop its hydraulic fracturing operations in Susquehanna County pending an intensive review.
"The department took this action because of our concern about Cabot's current fracking process [3] and to ensure that the environment in Susquehanna County is properly protected," DEP north central regional Director Robert Yowell said in a news release distributed this morning.
The stop-work order, which was accompanied by new citations issued for the third spill, will interrupt development of seven new wells that Cabot is currently drilling, and intending to fracture, in Susquehanna County. The citations were similar to those levied earlier in the week, including a failure to contain fracturing fluids.
The state's order gives Cabot two weeks to re-submit an "accurate" Pollution Prevention and Contingency Plan and Control and Disposal Plan for its well pad sites in the county. It gives the company three weeks to complete an engineering study of the equipment and practices used for hydraulic fracturing.
“There were unique elements of the location that experienced the three incidents and it was not necessary to force a shutdown of all fracturing activities,” said Cabot Spokesman Ken Komoroski, explaining that fluids were piped further than usual at the well site in question. “However Cabot understand the department has an important job to do.”
In interviews earlier this week, Komoroski underscored that the spills had happened under the watch of two of its contractors: Halliburton, one of the world’s largest drilling service companies, and Baker Tanks, a tank transport company.
In recognition of those circumstances, Pennsylvania will require Cabot to post its new pollution prevention plan at each well site and make it available to all its contractors, something that is not normally required in the state.
You can read the full press release here [4] (PDF).
http://www.propublica.org/feature/pennsylvania-orders-cabot-to-stop-fracturing-in-troubled-county-925
by Abrahm Lustgarten, ProPublica - September 25, 2009 12:39 pm EDT
After three chemical spills [1] in the past nine days, and following a history of environmental problems over the last year [2], Pennsylvania officials have ordered Cabot Oil and Gas, one of the most active natural gas companies in the state, to stop its hydraulic fracturing operations in Susquehanna County pending an intensive review.
"The department took this action because of our concern about Cabot's current fracking process [3] and to ensure that the environment in Susquehanna County is properly protected," DEP north central regional Director Robert Yowell said in a news release distributed this morning.
The stop-work order, which was accompanied by new citations issued for the third spill, will interrupt development of seven new wells that Cabot is currently drilling, and intending to fracture, in Susquehanna County. The citations were similar to those levied earlier in the week, including a failure to contain fracturing fluids.
The state's order gives Cabot two weeks to re-submit an "accurate" Pollution Prevention and Contingency Plan and Control and Disposal Plan for its well pad sites in the county. It gives the company three weeks to complete an engineering study of the equipment and practices used for hydraulic fracturing.
“There were unique elements of the location that experienced the three incidents and it was not necessary to force a shutdown of all fracturing activities,” said Cabot Spokesman Ken Komoroski, explaining that fluids were piped further than usual at the well site in question. “However Cabot understand the department has an important job to do.”
In interviews earlier this week, Komoroski underscored that the spills had happened under the watch of two of its contractors: Halliburton, one of the world’s largest drilling service companies, and Baker Tanks, a tank transport company.
In recognition of those circumstances, Pennsylvania will require Cabot to post its new pollution prevention plan at each well site and make it available to all its contractors, something that is not normally required in the state.
You can read the full press release here [4] (PDF).
http://www.propublica.org/feature/pennsylvania-orders-cabot-to-stop-fracturing-in-troubled-county-925
Friday, September 25, 2009
Cañon City uranium contamination looms over Montrose mill battle
By David O. Williams 9/25/09 8:39 AM
MONTROSE — For many in Montrose County and surrounding counties and communities in Southwest Colorado, the proposed Piñon Ridge uranium mill really is a clear-cut case of NIMBYism.
But for residents of Cañon City area, some of whom made the long trip to a special-use permit hearing in Montrose earlier this month, declaring “not in my back yard” could have spared them decades of health problems associated with the metal the Navajo Indians call “yellow death.”
Rebecca Lorenz of Colorado Springs was one of the attorneys who in the 1990s convinced two separate federal juries to award Cañon City area residents millions in damages stemming from radiation poisoning produced by Cotter Corp.’s uranium mill near Lincoln Park that was declared an EPA Superfund Cleanup site.
At a hearing before the Montrose County commissioners earlier this month, Lorenz read a laundry list of illnesses stemming from Cotter Corp. uranium processing that began in the 1950s and ran well into the 1980s: cancer, arthritis, bronchitis, infertility, birth defects and learning disabilities, to name a few.
She urged the commissioners to consider those considerable health risks before approving a special-use permit on Sept. 30 for a Canadian company, Energy Fuels, which wants to process uranium ore in far western Montrose County in the Paradox Valley between Bedrock and Naturita.
Cañon City resident Sharon Cunningham also made the long drive to Montrose, telling the commissioners that “ore from this area and tailings are less than a mile from my house.” She related the story of Cotter Corp. chemist Lynn Boughton, who worked at the Cañon City mill for decades and fought Cotter and Pinnacle Insurance for years to secure a settlement after contracting cancer.
Cotter Corp.’s Glen Williams also attended the hearing, acknowledging his company’s problems processing ore near Cañon City. But he said technology has changed dramatically since the state’s uranium-mining heyday, and he urged the commissioners to approve the Paradox Valley mill so mines Cotter still owns and operates in the area will have a much closer processing facility. Milling involves leaching uranium ore with sulfuric acid to produce uranium oxide, or yellow cake, which can then be converted into fuel rods for nuclear power plants.
“The [Paradox Valley] area is nice, but this county was built on natural resources,” Williams said.
Frank Filas, environmental manager for a U.S. subsidiary of Ontario-based Energy Fuels, said Cañon City is ancient history in his industry, with Cotter using unlined tailings ponds that led to groundwater contamination.
“You just can’t use [tailings] for sandboxes the way they were in the ’50s and ’60s, but comparing our situation to historic situations is a little disingenuous,” Filas said, adding his company will use state-of-the-art, double-lined ponds in the Paradox Valley.
Montrose internal medicine specialist Dr. Christine Gieszl and others cited numerous federal studies and a 2007 Colorado Medical Society (CMS) finding that uranium mining and milling pose a major public health risk. But Filas discounted the CMS decision.
“Our feeling is that decision was mostly political based on opposition to Powertech in Weld County,” Filas said, referring to a proposed uranium mine 15 miles northeast of Fort Collins that has now been opposed by the cities and towns of Fort Collins, Greeley, Ault, Wellington, Timnath and Nunn, according to the Fort Collins Coloradoan.
There are a number of other concerns associated with a revival of Colorado’s uranium mining industry to meet a growing call for carbon-free nuclear power in the United States and around the world, including transportation of ore and other mining materials on two-lane mountain roads.
The Montrose County commissioners have finished taking public testimony on the proposed mill and appear ready to make a decision at their next hearing on the proposal, set for 10 a.m., Sept. 30, at Friendship Hall in the Montrose County Fairgrounds and Event Center.
Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.
http://coloradoindependent.com/38522/canon-city-uranium-contamination-looms-over-montrose-mill-battle
MONTROSE — For many in Montrose County and surrounding counties and communities in Southwest Colorado, the proposed Piñon Ridge uranium mill really is a clear-cut case of NIMBYism.
But for residents of Cañon City area, some of whom made the long trip to a special-use permit hearing in Montrose earlier this month, declaring “not in my back yard” could have spared them decades of health problems associated with the metal the Navajo Indians call “yellow death.”
Rebecca Lorenz of Colorado Springs was one of the attorneys who in the 1990s convinced two separate federal juries to award Cañon City area residents millions in damages stemming from radiation poisoning produced by Cotter Corp.’s uranium mill near Lincoln Park that was declared an EPA Superfund Cleanup site.
At a hearing before the Montrose County commissioners earlier this month, Lorenz read a laundry list of illnesses stemming from Cotter Corp. uranium processing that began in the 1950s and ran well into the 1980s: cancer, arthritis, bronchitis, infertility, birth defects and learning disabilities, to name a few.
She urged the commissioners to consider those considerable health risks before approving a special-use permit on Sept. 30 for a Canadian company, Energy Fuels, which wants to process uranium ore in far western Montrose County in the Paradox Valley between Bedrock and Naturita.
Cañon City resident Sharon Cunningham also made the long drive to Montrose, telling the commissioners that “ore from this area and tailings are less than a mile from my house.” She related the story of Cotter Corp. chemist Lynn Boughton, who worked at the Cañon City mill for decades and fought Cotter and Pinnacle Insurance for years to secure a settlement after contracting cancer.
Cotter Corp.’s Glen Williams also attended the hearing, acknowledging his company’s problems processing ore near Cañon City. But he said technology has changed dramatically since the state’s uranium-mining heyday, and he urged the commissioners to approve the Paradox Valley mill so mines Cotter still owns and operates in the area will have a much closer processing facility. Milling involves leaching uranium ore with sulfuric acid to produce uranium oxide, or yellow cake, which can then be converted into fuel rods for nuclear power plants.
“The [Paradox Valley] area is nice, but this county was built on natural resources,” Williams said.
Frank Filas, environmental manager for a U.S. subsidiary of Ontario-based Energy Fuels, said Cañon City is ancient history in his industry, with Cotter using unlined tailings ponds that led to groundwater contamination.
“You just can’t use [tailings] for sandboxes the way they were in the ’50s and ’60s, but comparing our situation to historic situations is a little disingenuous,” Filas said, adding his company will use state-of-the-art, double-lined ponds in the Paradox Valley.
Montrose internal medicine specialist Dr. Christine Gieszl and others cited numerous federal studies and a 2007 Colorado Medical Society (CMS) finding that uranium mining and milling pose a major public health risk. But Filas discounted the CMS decision.
“Our feeling is that decision was mostly political based on opposition to Powertech in Weld County,” Filas said, referring to a proposed uranium mine 15 miles northeast of Fort Collins that has now been opposed by the cities and towns of Fort Collins, Greeley, Ault, Wellington, Timnath and Nunn, according to the Fort Collins Coloradoan.
There are a number of other concerns associated with a revival of Colorado’s uranium mining industry to meet a growing call for carbon-free nuclear power in the United States and around the world, including transportation of ore and other mining materials on two-lane mountain roads.
The Montrose County commissioners have finished taking public testimony on the proposed mill and appear ready to make a decision at their next hearing on the proposal, set for 10 a.m., Sept. 30, at Friendship Hall in the Montrose County Fairgrounds and Event Center.
Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.
http://coloradoindependent.com/38522/canon-city-uranium-contamination-looms-over-montrose-mill-battle
.AP IMPACT: School drinking water contains toxins
By GARANCE BURKE, Associated Press Writer Garance Burke, Associated Press Writer
Fri Sep 25, 11:06 am ET
CUTLER, Calif. – Over the last decade, the drinking water at thousands of schools across the country has been found to contain unsafe levels of lead, pesticides and dozens of other toxins.
An Associated Press investigation found that contaminants have surfaced at public and private schools in all 50 states — in small towns and inner cities alike.
But the problem has gone largely unmonitored by the federal government, even as the number of water safety violations has multiplied.
"It's an outrage," said Marc Edwards, an engineer at Virginia Tech who has been honored for his work on water quality. "If a landlord doesn't tell a tenant about lead paint in an apartment, he can go to jail. But we have no system to make people follow the rules to keep school children safe?"
The contamination is most apparent at schools with wells, which represent 8 to 11 percent of the nation's schools. Roughly one of every five schools with its own water supply violated the Safe Drinking Water Act in the past decade, according to data from the Environmental Protection Agency analyzed by the AP.
In California's farm belt, wells at some schools are so tainted with pesticides that students have taken to stuffing their backpacks with bottled water for fear of getting sick from the drinking fountain.
Experts and children's advocates complain that responsibility for drinking water is spread among too many local, state and federal agencies, and that risks are going unreported. Finding a solution, they say, would require a costly new national strategy for monitoring water in schools.
Schools with unsafe water represent only a small percentage of the nation's 132,500 schools. And the EPA says the number of violations spiked over the last decade largely because the government has gradually adopted stricter standards for contaminants such as arsenic and some disinfectants.
Many of the same toxins could also be found in water at homes, offices and businesses. But the contaminants are especially dangerous to children, who drink more water per pound than adults and are more vulnerable to the effects of many hazardous substances.
"There's a different risk for kids," said Cynthia Dougherty, head of the EPA's Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water.
Still, the EPA does not have the authority to require testing for all schools and can only provide guidance on environmental practices.
In recent years, students at a Minnesota elementary school fell ill after drinking tainted water. A young girl in Seattle got sick, too.
The AP analyzed a database showing federal drinking water violations from 1998 to 2008 in schools with their own water supplies. The findings:
• Water in about 100 school districts and 2,250 schools breached federal safety standards.
• Those schools and districts racked up more than 5,550 separate violations. In 2008, the EPA recorded 577 violations, up from 59 in 1998 — an increase that officials attribute mainly to tougher rules.
• California, which has the most schools of any state, also recorded the most violations with 612, followed by Ohio (451), Maine (417), Connecticut (318) and Indiana (289).
• Nearly half the violators in California were repeat offenders. One elementary school in Tulare County, in the farm country of the Central Valley, broke safe-water laws 20 times.
• The most frequently cited contaminant was coliform bacteria, followed by lead and copper, arsenic and nitrates.
The AP analysis has "clearly identified the tip of an iceberg," said Gina Solomon, a San Francisco physician who serves on an EPA drinking water advisory board. "This tells me there is a widespread problem that needs to be fixed because there are ongoing water quality problems in small and large utilities, as well."
Schools with wells are required to test their water and report any problems to the state, which is supposed to send all violations to the federal government.
But EPA officials acknowledge the agency's database of violations is plagued with errors and omissions. And the agency does not specifically monitor incoming state data on school water quality.
Critics say those practices prevent the government from reliably identifying the worst offenders — and carrying out enforcement.
Scientists say the testing requirements fail to detect dangerous toxins such as lead, which can wreak havoc on major organs and may retard children's learning abilities.
"There is just no excuse for this. Period," said California Sen. Barbara Boxer, Democratic chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. "We want to make sure that we fix this problem in a way that it will never happen again, and we can ensure parents that their children will be safe."
The problem goes beyond schools that use wells. Schools that draw water from public utilities showed contamination, too, especially older buildings where lead can concentrate at higher levels than in most homes.
In schools with lead-soldered pipes, the metal sometimes flakes off into drinking water. Lead levels can also build up as water sits stagnant over weekends and holidays.
Schools that get water from local utilities are not required to test for toxins because the EPA already regulates water providers. That means there is no way to ensure detection of contaminants caused by schools' own plumbing.
But voluntary tests in Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Seattle and Los Angeles have found dangerous levels of lead in recent years. And experts warn the real risk to schoolchildren is going unreported.
"I really suspect the level of exposure to lead and other metals at schools is underestimated," said Michael Schock, a corrosion expert with the EPA in Cincinnati. "You just don't know what is going on in the places you don't sample."
Since 2004, the agency has been asking states to increase lead monitoring. As of 2006, a survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found nearly half of all schools nationwide do not test their water for lead.
Because contaminant levels in water can vary from drinking fountain to drinking fountain, and different children drink different amounts of water, epidemiologists often have trouble measuring the potential threats to children's health.
But children have suffered health problems attributed to school water:
• In 2001, 28 children at a Worthington, Minn., elementary school experienced severe stomach aches and nausea after drinking water tainted with lead and copper, the result of a poorly installed treatment system.
• In Seattle several years ago, a 6-year-old girl suffered stomach aches and became disoriented and easily exhausted. The girl's mother asked her daughter's school to test its water, and also tested a strand of her daughter's hair. Tests showed high levels of copper and lead, which figured into state health officials' decision to phase-in rules requiring schools to test their water for both contaminants.
Many school officials say buying bottled water is less expensive than fixing old pipes. Baltimore, for instance, has spent more than $2.5 million on bottled water over the last six years.
After wrestling with unsafe levels of arsenic for almost two years, administrators in Sterling, Ohio, southeast of Cincinnati, finally bought water coolers for elementary school students last fall. Now they plan to move students to a new building.
In California, the Department of Public Health has given out more than $4 million in recent years to help districts overhaul their water systems.
But school administrators in the farmworker town of Cutler cannot fix chronic water problems at Lovell High School because funding is frozen due to the state's budget crisis.
Signs posted above the kitchen sink warn students not to drink from the tap because the water is tainted with nitrates, a potential carcinogen, and DBCP, a pesticide scientists say may cause male sterility.
As gym class ended one morning, thirsty basketball players crowded around a five-gallon cooler, the only safe place to get a drink on campus.
"The teachers always remind us to go to the classroom and get a cup of water from the cooler," said sophomore Israel Aguila. "But the bathroom sinks still work, so sometimes you kind of forget you can't drink out of them."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090925/ap_on_re_us/us_toxic_water_schools/print
Fri Sep 25, 11:06 am ET
CUTLER, Calif. – Over the last decade, the drinking water at thousands of schools across the country has been found to contain unsafe levels of lead, pesticides and dozens of other toxins.
An Associated Press investigation found that contaminants have surfaced at public and private schools in all 50 states — in small towns and inner cities alike.
But the problem has gone largely unmonitored by the federal government, even as the number of water safety violations has multiplied.
"It's an outrage," said Marc Edwards, an engineer at Virginia Tech who has been honored for his work on water quality. "If a landlord doesn't tell a tenant about lead paint in an apartment, he can go to jail. But we have no system to make people follow the rules to keep school children safe?"
The contamination is most apparent at schools with wells, which represent 8 to 11 percent of the nation's schools. Roughly one of every five schools with its own water supply violated the Safe Drinking Water Act in the past decade, according to data from the Environmental Protection Agency analyzed by the AP.
In California's farm belt, wells at some schools are so tainted with pesticides that students have taken to stuffing their backpacks with bottled water for fear of getting sick from the drinking fountain.
Experts and children's advocates complain that responsibility for drinking water is spread among too many local, state and federal agencies, and that risks are going unreported. Finding a solution, they say, would require a costly new national strategy for monitoring water in schools.
Schools with unsafe water represent only a small percentage of the nation's 132,500 schools. And the EPA says the number of violations spiked over the last decade largely because the government has gradually adopted stricter standards for contaminants such as arsenic and some disinfectants.
Many of the same toxins could also be found in water at homes, offices and businesses. But the contaminants are especially dangerous to children, who drink more water per pound than adults and are more vulnerable to the effects of many hazardous substances.
"There's a different risk for kids," said Cynthia Dougherty, head of the EPA's Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water.
Still, the EPA does not have the authority to require testing for all schools and can only provide guidance on environmental practices.
In recent years, students at a Minnesota elementary school fell ill after drinking tainted water. A young girl in Seattle got sick, too.
The AP analyzed a database showing federal drinking water violations from 1998 to 2008 in schools with their own water supplies. The findings:
• Water in about 100 school districts and 2,250 schools breached federal safety standards.
• Those schools and districts racked up more than 5,550 separate violations. In 2008, the EPA recorded 577 violations, up from 59 in 1998 — an increase that officials attribute mainly to tougher rules.
• California, which has the most schools of any state, also recorded the most violations with 612, followed by Ohio (451), Maine (417), Connecticut (318) and Indiana (289).
• Nearly half the violators in California were repeat offenders. One elementary school in Tulare County, in the farm country of the Central Valley, broke safe-water laws 20 times.
• The most frequently cited contaminant was coliform bacteria, followed by lead and copper, arsenic and nitrates.
The AP analysis has "clearly identified the tip of an iceberg," said Gina Solomon, a San Francisco physician who serves on an EPA drinking water advisory board. "This tells me there is a widespread problem that needs to be fixed because there are ongoing water quality problems in small and large utilities, as well."
Schools with wells are required to test their water and report any problems to the state, which is supposed to send all violations to the federal government.
But EPA officials acknowledge the agency's database of violations is plagued with errors and omissions. And the agency does not specifically monitor incoming state data on school water quality.
Critics say those practices prevent the government from reliably identifying the worst offenders — and carrying out enforcement.
Scientists say the testing requirements fail to detect dangerous toxins such as lead, which can wreak havoc on major organs and may retard children's learning abilities.
"There is just no excuse for this. Period," said California Sen. Barbara Boxer, Democratic chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. "We want to make sure that we fix this problem in a way that it will never happen again, and we can ensure parents that their children will be safe."
The problem goes beyond schools that use wells. Schools that draw water from public utilities showed contamination, too, especially older buildings where lead can concentrate at higher levels than in most homes.
In schools with lead-soldered pipes, the metal sometimes flakes off into drinking water. Lead levels can also build up as water sits stagnant over weekends and holidays.
Schools that get water from local utilities are not required to test for toxins because the EPA already regulates water providers. That means there is no way to ensure detection of contaminants caused by schools' own plumbing.
But voluntary tests in Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Seattle and Los Angeles have found dangerous levels of lead in recent years. And experts warn the real risk to schoolchildren is going unreported.
"I really suspect the level of exposure to lead and other metals at schools is underestimated," said Michael Schock, a corrosion expert with the EPA in Cincinnati. "You just don't know what is going on in the places you don't sample."
Since 2004, the agency has been asking states to increase lead monitoring. As of 2006, a survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found nearly half of all schools nationwide do not test their water for lead.
Because contaminant levels in water can vary from drinking fountain to drinking fountain, and different children drink different amounts of water, epidemiologists often have trouble measuring the potential threats to children's health.
But children have suffered health problems attributed to school water:
• In 2001, 28 children at a Worthington, Minn., elementary school experienced severe stomach aches and nausea after drinking water tainted with lead and copper, the result of a poorly installed treatment system.
• In Seattle several years ago, a 6-year-old girl suffered stomach aches and became disoriented and easily exhausted. The girl's mother asked her daughter's school to test its water, and also tested a strand of her daughter's hair. Tests showed high levels of copper and lead, which figured into state health officials' decision to phase-in rules requiring schools to test their water for both contaminants.
Many school officials say buying bottled water is less expensive than fixing old pipes. Baltimore, for instance, has spent more than $2.5 million on bottled water over the last six years.
After wrestling with unsafe levels of arsenic for almost two years, administrators in Sterling, Ohio, southeast of Cincinnati, finally bought water coolers for elementary school students last fall. Now they plan to move students to a new building.
In California, the Department of Public Health has given out more than $4 million in recent years to help districts overhaul their water systems.
But school administrators in the farmworker town of Cutler cannot fix chronic water problems at Lovell High School because funding is frozen due to the state's budget crisis.
Signs posted above the kitchen sink warn students not to drink from the tap because the water is tainted with nitrates, a potential carcinogen, and DBCP, a pesticide scientists say may cause male sterility.
As gym class ended one morning, thirsty basketball players crowded around a five-gallon cooler, the only safe place to get a drink on campus.
"The teachers always remind us to go to the classroom and get a cup of water from the cooler," said sophomore Israel Aguila. "But the bathroom sinks still work, so sometimes you kind of forget you can't drink out of them."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090925/ap_on_re_us/us_toxic_water_schools/print
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
