please consider this a codicil to boran2’s diary concerning the mis-management, a misnomer if ever one existed,of the DOE’s cleanup protocols. it started as a comment and morphed into much more than was apropos in length.
there is much more to this story, and it should be of concern to everyone. the disposal of spent nuclear material, and contaminated items is a problem of unprecedented magnitude and potential for catastrophic consequences.
understanding the wide ranging difficulties of dealing with materiel that has a half life of 25,000 years, and a lethality well beyond that, is now, and will continue to be, crucial to the judgments and decisions that are going to be required in the very near future. these decisions’ impact will be most critically obvious in our quest for alternative energy sources, primarily regarding nuclear, and acceptable risks. that’s an issue that will not be addressed in this missive, except in footnote.
more on the flip
having lived for nearly 37 years 10 miles ± from the the Rocky Flats superfund site, and 30 miles ±, from the Rocky Mountain Arsenal site, there is much more to this problem than what is depicted in the article referenced.
much of the problem stems from the fact that the criteria being used to determine the classification, and subsequent conditions and acceptable means of disposal, are all predicated on DOE’s “risk-based end state” analysis, which, ultimately, allows the department, in collaboration w/ local authorities and contractors, to short cut remedial efforts and minimize the costs.
the significant reductions in the Superfund budgets, and restrictions and limitations on who’s responsible; ie: the feds, the states, and the individual operators, past and present, of the the sites, has led to a massive reduction not only in monies available, but in remedies that may be pursued against those responsible for creating the contamination. this has further eroded the quality and long term safety of existing project sites, and seriously jeopardized future ones.
the National Governors Association has issued a Policy Position following the supreme courts’ decision diminishing incentives for responsible parties to perform voluntary cleanups or participate, financially in mandated ones.
[…]
A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision has the potential to diminish a significant incentive under CERCLA for responsible parties to properly perform voluntary cleanups under state oversight. In Aviall Services, Inc. v. Cooper Industries, Inc., the Court held that CERCLA Section 113(f)(1) establishes a right of contribution for the cleanup only if the responsible party has been subject to litigation under CERCLA Sections 106 or 107(a), potentially requiring states or the federal government to sue a current owner before it may seek to recover cleanup funds from a previous owner.
[…]
having watched the ramifications, as well as the miss-handling, corruption and illegal activities surrounding the cleanup of, perhaps one of, the most polluted sites in the country…Rocky Flats, the former production facility for plutonim triggers for the u.s. nuclear arsenal, from 1958 thru 1989, all l can say is…the system and the way it’s been administered is seriously flawed, and unquestionably dangerous.
much has been written concerning the Rocky Flats project, by people a great deal more knowledgeable than me. a good place to start is with LeRoy Moore’s The bait-and-switch cleanup:
ROCKY FLATS
The bait-and-switch cleanupAfter the Rocky Flats nuclear facility cleanup is complete, most of the 6,500-acre site, located 16 miles from downtown Denver, will be handed over to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to be maintained as a National Wildlife Refuge. Had the site been designated for future use as housing, farmland, or even park land, the cleanup would be more thorough–and more expensive. The “wildlife refuge” designation provides the excuse for a cheaper cleanup, but will it make for a safe cleanup, especially in the long term?
Risk-based end state
At Rocky Flats, where from 1952 to 1989 the Energy Department produced plutonium pits for the U.S. nuclear arsenal, Energy is using a “risk-based end state” approach to cleanup. By deciding on the site’s future use or “end state”–a wildlife refuge in the case of Rocky Flats–Energy can tailor its remediation goals to meet legal requirements.
For Superfund sites like Rocky Flats, the law allows great latitude in compliance. Energy must protect what it and the regulators–the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment–have determined to be the “maximally exposed individual” for the site: a wildlife refuge worker.
The cleanup they are implementing is designed to protect that refuge worker at roughly the midpoint of the Superfund risk range of one in 10,000 cancers in excess of normal to one in 1,000,000.
In a recent Science article, F. Ward Whicker, a specialist in radioecology at Colorado State University, and researchers from the University of Georgia’s Savannah River Ecology Laboratory and Argonne National Laboratory, applauded Energy’s risk-based cleanup plan and cited Rocky Flats as a successful example of an approach that will protect public health, minimize environmental damage, and result in “huge cost savings.” [1] The Energy Department, too, touts the cleanup at Rocky Flats as a model for its other sites elsewhere in the country.
But an examination of certain features of the Rocky Flats cleanup, as well as various assumptions about the risk posed by contamination, shows Energy’s risk-based approach to be seriously flawed.
[…]
…[and] demonstrates a wanton disregard for the well-being of unsuspecting future generations.
entire article HERE
to truly evaluate the Risk Assessment approach, one should take a look back at Chernobyl…and a good overview of what the potential for the future might hold…and a startling look at a post-apocalyptic, dystopian landscape start here…BBC In Depth: Chernobyl: 20 Years On…it can happen here.
lTMF’sA
