[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Terrorism has altered the nuclear equation forever
(As long as we're on the subject of dioxane, I'd like to note that, in addition
to my health physics activities, I'm the Chair of the Education Committee of
the Certified Hazardous Materials Managers of MI. Our 2004 Annual Conference,
on March 4, 2004, will include a talk on this issue by someone from Pall. All
Radsafers are welcome. Please email me, privately, if you wish further
information)
Many thanx for your response. This is what makes Radsafe worthwhile; it's
information not available anywhere else.
In addition to the useful historical information, your response illustrates the
importance of a "safety conscious work environment" for workers, and, in the
long run, for management. It's quite possible that someone at Gellman raised
similar issues and received a similar response. In those days, many companies
had the mistaken impression that if the regulators let you do something, you
were not responsible for the consequences. The company would have been a lot
better off if they'd listened to you and him!
Another lesson from your response is that poor practices lead to tough
regulations. For example, the Love Canal experience was a major factor in the
punitive and prescriptive RCRA and CERCLA regulations we now face.
To the credit of the health physics profession, we generally did it right the
first time.
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Curies forever.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
Stewart Farber wrote:
> Hi all:
> Bill Lipton mentions that Gellman Co. was disposing of the solvent dioxane
> 20 years ago by "permitted" well injection and "spray irrigation" and now
> is bearing the cost of cleanup. As well they should! A cursory check by any
> chemist or engineer at that time would have raised warning flags that
> dioxane solvent was much too toxic for such casual disposal and dispersal
> in the environment.
>
> As to what was known at the time, for two years in the late 1960s, before I
> decided to begin graduate studies in Public Health, I worked as an R&D
> Chemist involved with solvent based coatings. I found one of the common
> solvents used to be dioxane, a good solvent for many organic compounds and
> resins used in coating formulation. As of 1968, Sax's Lab Safety Guide
> rated dioxane as causing "Permanant and irreversible kidney and liver
> damage after short exposures to small concentrations".
>
> Nevertheless, I found workers mixing drums of coating formulations without
> respiratory protection, washing out 55 gallon stainless steel mixing
> barrels and plant machinery coating drums with dioxane soaked cloths, with
> their heads repeatedly inside the barrels.
>
> When I raised the toxicity of dioxane in a plant Safety Committee meeting,
> after being asked to serve on it, and read the information from Sax's Lab
> Safety Guide into the record in regard to improving respiratory protection,
> I was warned afterwards by a company VP never to do anything like that
> again at risk of my job. So much for safety, especially my job [employment]
> safety. The turning point in my young chemist's career came shortly after
> when I asked the Technical Director of this company a question that
> concerned me: "What's going to happen when these workers come down with
> kidney and liver damage after decades of exposure to these solvents?". The
> Technical Director doubled over with laughter, tears in his eyes. When he
> regained his exposure his answer was: "Well then we fire them." Seemed like
> something right out of Charles Dickens' 19th Century London.
>
> At that time I decided to pursue graduate studies in Public Health and Air
> Pollution Control. When I subsequently got involved in radiation protection
> and environmental radiation monitoring around nuclear plants in 1972, I
> always felt that worker protection to radiation exposure was infinitely
> better controlled, and the risks well bounded at low levels, vs. the
> unquantified and often very large risks workers faced to chemical exposure
> [and other hazards] in countless other industries.
>
> Stewart Farber, MS Public Health UMass School of Public Health '72
>
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 07:53:39 -0500, William V Lipton
> <liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM> wrote:
>
> > I'm note sure why people think that the government discriminates against
> > radioactive material, compared to other hazardous materials. I find that
> > the EPA's RCRA, CERCLA, and TSCA regulation is much more prescriptive and
> > punitive. EPA levies substantial penalties, even for nonwillful
> > violations. NRC fines for other than power reactor licensees are a joke.
> > CERCLA cleanups are at least as difficult as NRC decommissioning.
> >
> > I'd like to point out one example. Pall (formerly Gellman) filters is
> > located near me, in Ann Arbor, MI. Approximately 20 years, ago, they
> > disposed of a chemical, dioxane, (not dioxin) by permitted well injection
> > and spray irrigation; nothing illegal. Later, the plume was found to be
> > migrating toward downtown Ann Arbor. They've been spending ~ $1E6/year
> > on cleanup, with no end in sight.
> >
> > The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
> > It's not about dose, it's about trust.
> > Curies forever.
> >
> > Bill Lipton
> > liptonw@dteenergy.com
> >
> > BLHamrick@AOL.COM wrote:
> >
> >> Thank you, Dr. Weiner. Good points all. If the public wants to
> >> eliminate the risks posed by radiation and radioactive materials, then
> >> the regulators and standard-setting agencies need to "harmonize" those
> >> risks across all hazardous materials present in our environment and
> >> traded in everyday commerce, rather than "discriminate" against
> >> radioactive materials (and only those man-made, to boot), simply because
> >> Hollywood has demonized them...................--
>
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To
unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the
text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,
with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/