Fwd: [S-A] Dumping Radioactive Materials on the Public

[Guest guest]

" Misty L. Trepke " <mistytrepke wrote:To:

 

" Misty L. Trepke "

Mon, 18 Aug 2003 02:36:07 -0000

[s-A] Dumping Radioactive Materials on the Public

 

his is outrageous...

Other comments?

Misty L. Trepke

http://www..com

 

Dumping radioactive materials On The Public

 

Karen Charman is an investigative journalist specializing in

agriculture, health and the environment.

 

 

What would you think if you heard that radioactive materials from

aging nuclear power plants and weapons complexes were going to be

dumped in community landfills? Or that they would be " recycled " into

everyday consumer goods, building materials, roads, playgrounds and

more just to save those who created the waste the trouble and

expense of keeping it isolated? That is exactly what the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering -- despite the

fact that the agency is statutorily required to protect the public's

health and ensure our safety in regards to the nuclear materials it

regulates.

 

The NRC has begun the process of writing rules that could allow

across-the-board deregulation of so-called low-level radioactive

materials from aging nuclear power plants, weapons complexes and

other facilities the agency licenses. These rules will determine

what will happen to the metals, concrete, soil, plastics, chemicals,

glass, paper and other items that become radioactively contaminated

at nuclear facilities.

 

Despite downplaying the risks of low level radiation exposure, the

NRC Web site says " any increase in dose, no matter how small,

results in an incremental increase in risk " for cancer and passing

on birth defects. Further, radiation exposures are cumulative in the

body, meaning that each exposure adds to the danger from previous

exposures.

 

If unlabelled radioactive materials are released into our daily

lives, there would be no way to figure out how much additional

radiation anyone was actually exposed to. That is partly because NRC

projections only consider the potential amount of radiation from one

source at a time, not the combined amount from multiple sources

which would exist in the real world. In September 2002, NRC

commissioner Jeffrey Merrifield pointed out an additional problem:

the " potential that the radioactive component may be concentrated in

the recycling process or that the material will be recycled in a

form resulting in more actual contact with the general public. "

 

Nobody knows exactly how much of this material currently exists.

The best estimates are on metals, which are said to account for the

largest amount of radioactive material destined for recycling. The

United States' 123 commercial nuclear power plants (some of which

are already closed down) are expected to contribute 1.4 million to 2

million tons to the radioactive scrap metal heap. On top of that,

over the next few decades more than a million tons of radioactive

scrap metal are expected to be recovered from the nation's nuclear

weapons facilities, according to a report by the Department of

Energy (DOE), which runs those sites.

 

Currently, the NRC allows " slightly radioactive " materials to be

released on a case-by-case basis. But the agency has been pushing to

standardize the practice, and it has proposed four other options.

The first would establish acceptable levels of radioactive

contamination that would allow materials below that threshold to be

released without any restrictions. Under the second option, the

materials would be restricted to certain industrial uses. Option

number three would allow the material to go to hazardous waste

facilities that are not designed to handle radioactive materials.

The fourth option would restrict this material to radioactive waste

dumps.

 

If this material is deregulated for unrestricted use, as the

industry hopes, it will end up in everything from our knives and

forks, zippers, the braces on our kids' teeth -- even artificial hip

joints and IUDs -- to gardening tools, potting soil, building

materials, furniture, computer equipment, and children's toys. In

other words, it will be everywhere -- unlabeled and unmonitored.

 

Environmental groups, the metal industry and the steelworkers union

vehemently oppose unrestricted release. But it remains to be seen

whether the steel industry, the environmental community or the

public can stop the nuclear establishment from dumping this portion

of its waste into general commerce. The safest option is to keep it

isolated in facilities licensed to deal with radioactive waste, and

phase out nuclear power and weapons, which only create more.

 

But the Bush administration is aggressively promoting both new

nuclear power plants and weapons, while both the DOE and the NRC are

looking at ways to cut costs. And as recently departed NRC chairman

Richard Meserve observed, recycling the waste is definitely a lot

cheaper for the nuclear waste generators. In January 2001,

Environment News Service reported him saying that releasing

contaminated solid waste materials into everyday commerce is

necessary to ensure the continued viability of both the nuclear

power industry and the DOE's clean-ups of its highly contaminated

weapons complexes.

 

In 1986 and again in 1990, the environmental community blocked NRC's

attempts to deregulate radioactively contaminated materials for

unrestricted recycling, but now it may be a lot harder to stop.

Other countries face mountains of nuclear garbage, and the European

Commission and the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency have

already set permissive recycling standards. International transport

regulations have also been amended to allow the free flow of

unlabeled radioactive scrap and products made from it, and the U.S.

Department of Transportation is now looking at doing the same.

 

But it's not a done deal yet. The dangerous and irresponsible

dumping of radioactive waste into our daily lives is not inevitable.

Raise hell -- in the media, with the NRC and your federal, state and

local representatives to permanently prohibit it. Time is short.

 

<http://www.nrc.gov/who-we-are/contactus.html> Contact the NRC

<http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/>Contact your elected

officials http://tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8342

 

List address: http://www.topica.com/lists/SpeakIt

Subscribe: SpeakIt-