Re: "...radioactive material in California's municipal dumps" [FW]

[BLHamrick@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 12/09/2002 11:02:12 AM Pacific Standard Time, frantaj@aecl.ca writes:


> FYI &comment..... 



The article appears to me to have had its final (or close to) edit by someone closely connected to the anti-nuclear contingency, because much of their pet rhetoric appears throughout.


It starts out saying that "For at least a decade, California has allowed mildly radioactive waste from old nuclear sites to go to recycling plants and city dumps..." even though I personally told the reporter (as a private citizen and not representing the Employer-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named), and it is easily verified with any professional HP in California, that this practice has been in place since materials were regulated (i.e., over 40 years).  He needs this little hedge, however, to make a point later in the article.


In paragraphs 16 - 22, he tries to tie the release of materials to landfills to the fact that the Ward Valley site never opened.  This claim is ridiculous.  The two issues are unrelated, since Ward Valley was set to receive licensed LLRW, whereas the release of materials to landfills or disposal in place is relevant only to residual radioactive materials that no longer require regulation.  Not to mention the fact that the release practice has been in place over 40 years, and the LLRW Policy Act only became law in 1980.  Apples and oranges.


He, as many reporters do, quotes the 2 1/2 chest x-rays as equivalent to the 25 millirem release rule.  This is just a tool to simplify matters for the public, and it is effective, but leaves the under-educated public with the wrong impression.  The two are not equivalent, due to the difference in dose-rate, and due to the erroneous implication that simply working at a landfill you could, in fact, receive the equivalent of 2 1/2 chest x-rays per year.


The limit is actually a dose of 25 millirem in the peak year for a thousand years, post-decommissioning.  Most years will be much less, and the dose is generally calculated for the resident-farmer, fishing the site, drilling for water, growing fruits, vegetables, meat animals and dairy animals.  This isn't anything like the worker scenario, or even the neighbor scenario.  More apples and oranges.


I was a little surprised by the statement that the state's attorneys don't want to release a list of terminated sites due to 9/11 concerns.  If true, I surmise they may just playing silly lawyer-reindeer games.  It would probably be easier to grind Brazil nuts and extract the radium for a dirty bomb, than to try and extract it from landfills or released sites.


I'm also disappointed that they report that "Davis' veto reflected the concerns of nuclear energy and biotechnology firms, which would have had to spend millions more to dispose of radioactive waste at licensed nuclear dumps if the measure had become law," rather than giving a balanced view.  I don't know why they would simply believe this was Davis' reason for the veto, when there were plenty legitimate reasons, such as the fact that the bill offered Californians no measurable health and safety benefit at great economic and fiscal expense.


A side note, I'd LOVE to know who the "Anti-nuclear activists, some of them scientists who have worked in the nuclear industry," are, and to take a look at their resumes.


Here's another thing I rolled my eyes at:  "That's the important point, because the history of radiation regulation is that these permissible levels have been getting lower and lower," said Hirsch of the Committee to Bridge the Gap, who also was director of the Adlai Stevenson Program on Nuclear Policy at UC Santa Cruz."


I find that very interesting, since the Committee to Bridge the Gap argued in court, in the case against DHS regarding the license termination rule that all PRIOR release limits were much LESS than 25 millirem, so in his view they were getting higher and higher when it suited his purpose.


The reporter also states, "Moreover, another arm of the federal government, the Environmental Protection Agency, recommends more restrictive policies than the NRC," but completely fails to note that on October 8, 2002, the EPA signed an MOU with the NRC, agreeing to continue their "policy of deferral" (originally set in 1983) to NRC's decommissioning policies, and, again, agreed that they expect that NRC decommissionings will be fully protective of public health and safety.


Those are just my major comments.  I have others, which should come as no surprise to anyone on this list.


I haven't decided what to do yet, but, please, feel free to investigate my opinions and provide your own input to the Times, if you are so inclined.


Barbara, JD, CHP, speaking as a private citizen