RE: UCS letter by Lochbaum (from ans-pie)

["Franta, Jaroslav" <frantaj@aecl.ca>]

Something that I found interesting in the UCS letter by Lochbaum that you
(owner-ans-pie@nuke-ans.org) posted is the following (quote) :

		 When I asked the NRC about soil erosion and concrete
degradation over time reducing the effectiveness of the protective cover, I
was answered with a lot of shoulder shrugging and mumbling about the
activity level of the radioactive material also declining with time.

....someone needs to enlighten Lochbaum about soil erosion and declining
activity levels of URANIUM left in the ground, if it isn't burned up in
nuclear power plants and turned into fission products that decay away ~200
million times faster. 
Prof. B.L. Cohen's studies on this subject, published in Health Physics some
years ago hardly constitute "shoulder shrugging and mumbling." 
OK, so the NRC wasn't able to whip out a copy of Cohen's HP paper on the
spot, when accosted by Lochbaum. But wouldn't someone who calls himself a
"Nuclear Safety Engineer" and writes letters to US senators be expected to
keep himself informed at some minimal level at least ? 
Its even quite likely that Lochbaum IS AWARE of it, but cynically pretends
that he isn't, hoping that everyone else - including US lawmakers and NRC
officials - have forgotten about it. This practice of "selective memory" is
a common attribute of many antinukes.
Let's not let him & the UCS get away with it.

Thank you.

Regards,

Jaro
frantaj@aecl.ca

> ----------
> From: 	owner-ans-pie@nuke-ans.org[SMTP:owner-ans-pie@nuke-ans.org]
> Reply To: 	Ans-pie
> Sent: 	Wednesday February 09, 2000 7:25 PM
> To: 	Multiple recipients of list ans-pie
> Subject: 	UCS
> 
> <<File: UCSRUBBL.DOC>>
> See attached for yet another example of leaping from nuclear power to
> death,
> this one from Lochbaum.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

> February 7, 2000
> 
> Senator Sharon Treat
> Maine State Senate
> State House Station #1
> Augusta, ME 04333
> 
> 
> Dear Senator Treat:
> 
> 
> As the nuclear safety engineer for the Union of Concerned Scientists, my
> primary responsibility is monitoring safety levels at operating nuclear
> power plants in the United States. Despite this focus, there are safety
> issues related to the decommissioning of nuclear plants that have
> permanently shut down , such as Maine Yankee, that get our attention. One
> of those issues - the proposed 'rubblization' of radioactively
> contaminated material into the basement of closed nuclear plants - will be
> the subject of an upcoming Committee hearing. I respectfully submit our
> views on this important health matter.
> 
> In the past decade, there have been many news stories about radioactive
> material escaping from nuclear facilities by mistake. To cite just a few,
> there are reports of tritium leaking into the ground water from nuclear
> facilities in New York, Georgia, and Tennessee; plutonium escaping into
> the atmosphere following an explosion at a nuclear facility in Washington;
> uranium hexaflouride being released at a plant in Oklahoma and resulting
> in the death of a worker; 133,000 gallons of radioactive liquid being
> inadvertently discharged into the ocean from a nuclear power plant in New
> Jersey; and contaminated concrete blocks from a nuclear power plant in
> Connecticut mistakenly being released for use at private homes.
> Unfortunately, this is but a small sample of a very long list of spills,
> leaks, and releases.
> 
> The unplanned and uncontrolled release of radioactive material is a public
> health hazard because radiation can kill or damage living cells. High
> radiation exposures can cause immediate death, as was tragically
> demonstrated last September in Japan. Lower exposures can cause
> radiation-induced cancer deaths five to twenty years later or cause
> genetic defects to be passed to subsequent generations.
> 
> Sufficient radioactive materials remain at the Maine Yankee plant to pose
> a threat to public health and safety if it is not properly managed. The
> long radioactive half-lives for some of these materials means that this
> threat will exist for decades, perhaps centuries, into the future.
> 
> I have discussed the 'rubblization' proposal with several NRC officials
> and nuclear industry representatives. To date, no one has provided me with
> sound logic for how it is safe or why it is legal. I have listened to
> countless statements about how it is cheaper and faster, but not a single
> cogent statement of why it is safe and legal. The Day newspaper in New
> London, Connecticut, ran an editorial on September 29, 1999, highlighting
> the matter. A copy of that editorial is enclosed.
> 
> The 'rubblization' plan that has been described to me most often involves
> the decontamination of plant equipment and structures to the extent
> possible to remove radioactive materials from their surfaces. The
> radioactive material removed via this process will be shipped away for
> burial at a nuclear waste dump. The remaining radioactive material will be
> collected in the former basement of the nuclear plant. It will then be
> covered with dirt, capped with a layer of concrete, and hidden by topsoil.
> The depth of dirt and concrete used to cover the pit containing
> radioactive material will vary, but this depth will be sufficient to
> reduce the radiation level measured at three feet off the ground to the
> point where individuals will not receive more than 10, 15, or 25 millirem
> exposure in a year.
> 
> This plan is unsafe because it relies on the assumption that the
> protective cover of soil and concrete remains intact essentially in
> perpetuity. It's an ill-advised and unwarranted assumption. When I asked
> NRC officials if they would require a fence around the site or a deed
> restriction to prevent any one from drilling down through the concrete
> cap, I was asked why any one would want to drill. When I asked the NRC
> about soil erosion and concrete degradation over time reducing the
> effectiveness of the protective cover, I was answered with a lot of
> shoulder shrugging and mumbling about the activity level of the
> radioactive material also declining with time.
> 
> The plan is illegal because it creates a radioactive waste dump without
> the niceties of the formal permitting and licensing process. Radioactive
> waste dumps require liners to prevent the radioactive material from
> reaching the ground water and monitoring stations to verify that
> protective barriers are indeed protecting the public. Abandoned basements
> filled with radioactive trash do not require these things or any of the
> other regulatory requirements that were promulgated to protect the public.
> 
> The plan is cheap because it omits all of the safety and legal steps. If
> the goal is to save money today and make future generations pay with their
> pocketbooks - and perhaps their lives - then this plan is the right one.
> If the goal is to protect public health today, tomorrow, and into the
> future, then this plan must be rejected.
> 
> Thank you for conducting this hearing and for consideration of our views
> on this important health matter. If we can be of any help to the committee
> on this, or any other nuclear safety matter, please do not hesitate to
> contact me.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> David A. Lochbaum
> Nuclear Safety Engineer
> 
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html