[ RadSafe ]J Environmental Radioactivity, Welcome to the New Mexico Legislature Web Site

Tue Nov 27 17:29:15 CST 2007

Hi Franz:

Prior to my departure from New Mexico to be in the Lone Star State, and work
for the big, bad oil companies, I worked as an expert witness on a couple of
litigations through the NRC on uranium licenses.  Most recently, the NRC
upheld the license for the uranium miner, HRI in 1999 and 2006. The
anti-nuclear opposition always lost because their science was so bad,
although they do have an ear with the now activist NMED (New Mexico
Environmental Department) and after the Democrats got to have their own
governor, close relations with the State Legislature.

Over the last couple of years, the State of New Mexico passed regulations
not only for drinking water, but also "groundwater" quality, but only
focused on "uranium".  So it is now illegal for uranium minerals to dissolve
into groundwater, although I'm not quite sure how that will be enforced.

This is an effort to prevent any uranium mining in the State, although even
the EPA recognizes the principle of "Aquifer Exemption" when that aquifer is
host to a uranium ore body.  This action took the groundwater standard from
5,000 micrograms/liter (µ/L) to 7 µ/L.  The interesting fact about this is
that for some regions of the state, the median GW values for uranium exceed
7 µg/L.

There is a paper describing the Aquifer Exemption concept in IAEA
TECDOC-1396:

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1396_web.pdf

Licensing of in situ leach recovery operations for the Crownpoint and Church
Rock uranium deposits, New Mexico: A case study, M. Pelizza, D.W. McCarn,
pp.153-173.

I guess you might say that I know the 2nd author quite well...

But this latest bit of news is just more of the same hysteria, with the same
arguments that were used in the groundwater limits case. "The New Mexico
Environmental Law Center" is front and center with these issues, is
well-funded and very activist.  After failing to stop the NRC license from
going forward, they resorted to changing the GW limits.  Now they are
scaring veterans.

In the 1999 litigation, the opposition was fined $250,000 by the NRC for a
series of illegal actions including misrepresenting an IAEA published paper
- IAEA TECDOC 1258:

McCarn, D.W., (2001): The Crownpoint and Churchrock Uranium Deposits, San
Juan Basin, New Mexico: An ISL Mining Perspective, Technical Committee
Meeting on Uranium Resources, Production, and Demand, International Atomic
Energy Agency, June 10-13, 1997, IAEA TECDOC 1258, pp. 171-183, Dec. 2001.

They cut a figure out of the article, replaced the title and explanation,
and gave me credit for it...  The NRC hearing officer was not amused!

Dan ii

Dan W McCarn, Geologist
Albuquerque & Houston
On 11/27/07, Franz Schönhofer <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at> wrote:
>
> Roger,
>
> I comment only on your question about the Journal of Environmental
> Radioactivity.
>
> About 15 years ago my institute subscribed to it due to my demand for it.
> I
> have read it for almost ten years, since a few years I do not have access
> to
> it any more.
>
> I think that the quality of a journal depends on many factors, one being
> the
> quality of the referees. I found both excellent and mediocre papers in it,
> as you can do in any journal. In 1987 I was really shocked to read in
> Health
> Physics (the "bible" of radiation protection) a paper about gross alpha
> and
> beta radioactivity in aerosols in Madrid after the Chernobyl accident - we
> had shortly after the accident nuclide specific data of aerosols,
> precipitation, soil, milk, vegetation, food, water etc. etc. in Austria,
> as
> those date were also available in practically all European countries,
> including dose estimates. Spain was practically not affected by Chernobyl
> fallout and to use in 1987 gross-measurements like in the stone-age of
> radiation surveillance was a shame - but Health Physics published it!
>
> All papers published at JER are no doubt scientific. What I never read on
> JER was any anti-nuclear or green propaganda. I do not know the article(s)
> you cited because of my non-existing access. Who are the authors - this
> might give some hints. Without knowing the article I would be sure, that
> also this one would not distribute the unfounded anti-DU propaganda.
>
> There are more than enough reports about DU use and its impact on soldiers
> for instance in the former Yugoslav Republic by national authorities and
> even international organisations (IAEA).
>
> If you find out more about the article I would appreciate to hear about it
> -
> most of all I would of course like an electronic copy, which might be
> difficult to obtain without charge.
>
>
> Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
> MinRat i.R.
> Habicherg. 31/7
> A-1160 Wien/Vienna
> AUSTRIA
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im
> Auftrag
> von Roger Helbig
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. November 2007 11:21
> An: radsafelist
> Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Welcome to the New Mexico Legislature Web Site
>
> Here is the website about the New Mexico bill -- I just got this link.  I
> understand that State Senator Pino's staff may be able to provide
> additional
> information about who testified, etc.
>
> Can any of you comment on the Journal of Environmental Radioactivity -- is
> this is a good source - it is cited as the reference for the health
> effects,
> none of which are known to have actually occured
>
>
>
> http://legis.state.nm.us/lcs/_session.asp?chamber=S&type=++&number=840&year=
> 07
>
> >From one of the links on this site --
>
> Senate Bill 840 – Page 2
>
> SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
>
> Concerns have been raised that American military personnel have been
> exposed
> to depleted uranium from military weapons during the Middle East conflicts
> in the past two decades. These exposures may have some long-term health
> effects.
>
> Depleted uranium is widely used in the manufacture of heavy munitions and
> armor in many of the U.S. military and other western military's weapons
> systems. The material is 1.7 times denser than lead, and provides an
> advantage when competing against more traditional materials. Dusts and
> particulates from these munitions exist in the air and on the ground in
> battlefield conditions.
>
> Exposure to aerosolized depleted uranium particulates has been thought to
> cause acute irreversible damage to kidney function and other organ damage
> when very high exposure levels occur.1There is usually an extended time
> period between an exposure to radioactive materials and the growth of
> related cancers, such as leukemia and other types.2
>
> According to the Department of Health, there is health information on
> uranium exposure available on multiple websites including the United
> States
> Department of Veterans Affairs. However, developing targeted educational
> outreach, in language understandable by the lay person, would address
> specific concerns of veterans exposed to depleted uranium.
>
> RELATIONSHIP
>
> Senate Bill 840 relates to House Bill 736. House Bill 736 provides uranium
> training to veterans. Senate Bill 840 complements Senate Bill 841, which
> appropriates $200 thousand and seeks to establish a testing protocol,
> develop and establish a health registry, and contract with appropriate
> testing laboratories and coordinate affected parties in regard to
> voluntary
> testing program for military veterans who may have been exposed to
> depleted
> uranium.
>
> TECHNICAL ISSUES There is a substantial amount of available information
> regarding this issue in existence. The bill does not clarify whether the
> Veterans' Services department would be responsible for producing
> information/ research on the depleted uranium, or whether they would be
> compiling existing research to distribute to affected veterans.
>
> PD/nt
>
> 1Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, Properties, use and health
> effects
> of depleted uranium (DU): a general overview, 2-5-2002
> 2Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, Properties, use and health
> effects
> of depleted uranium (DU): a general overview, 2-5-2002
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> the
> RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit:
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>

-- 
Dan W. McCarn
Geologist

Tel: +1-713-241-5726; Fax: +1-713-241-1012; Cell: +1-505-710-3600;
Home: +1-281-903-7667; Austria: +43-676-725-6622
Email: Dan.McCarn at shell.com; HotGreenChile at gmail.com