A typical municipal landfill usually has a layer of protective lining, but is not equipped to hold

low-level radioactive waste.

Coming to your Municipal Landfill – Radioactive Waste

Is the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico a good reason for energy companies to reconsider the use of cheap practices and quick solutions?  Apparently not so for the natural gas giants, who are drilling up the Northeast region that overlies a naturally radioactive Marcellus shale formation.  The formation is estimated to contain a colossal 500 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.  But how to dispose of the radioactive shale rock brought up from the drill hole?  Why not your neighborhood solid waste landfill?

The Marcellus shale formation has elevated radioactive concentrations due to naturally occurring uranium, approximately 25-30 times above background concentrations.  Meanwhile, the produced water from these wells can contain 15,000 pCi/L (picoCuries per liter) of radium.  The drinking water standard for radium is 5 pCi/L.  What is to be done with the cuttings and the wastewater?  Well, most Marcellus shale wells in Pennsylvania send the fluids to wastewater treatment plants and dispose of the dewatered drill cuttings in various landfills.

A municipal landfill in Elmira, New York, is the battleground on this issue.  If approved, it would be the home for solid waste from Fortuna’s wells in Bradford County, PA.  The landfill is scheduled to receive thousands of tons of radioactive drill cuttings per year.  Furthermore, according to NYSDEC draft permit, the “solid” waste disposed of at the landfill can contain up to 20% of water, which may be even more radioactive than the drill cuttings themselves and can mobilize the radionuclides in the solid waste.

The introduction of this radioactive material into the landfill will give rise to serious problems due to the generation of radon, presence of radiologically contaminated leachate, and the potential reuse of the site in the future.  NYSDEC and County officials seem okay with the idea, but local public interest groups are mightily opposed, in upcoming draft hearings.  RWMA has drafted an initial memo to Gary Abraham, the lawyer representing the Residents for the Preservation of Lowman and Chemung (RFPLC), about the disposal of drilling waste in the landfill, as well as a full-length Report on Radioactivity in the Marcellus Shale.

U.S. Border Protection workers are exposed to ionizing radiation while operating scanning equipment.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection – Caught By Friendly Fire?

Canada plans to introduce up to four new PWR reactors at the Darlington Nuclear Station

without a plan for managing the radioactive

waste they will produce.

Used Nuclear Fuel Disposal in Canada – It may be getting hotter

Most people would not buy a home without bathrooms.  Would you?   But Canada’s present generation of nuclear power plants was built with no prior plan as to how to manage the radioactive wastes it would produce. Now, Canada is on the cusp of repeating this mistake but this time with hotter, more hazardous radioactive wastes.

In 2005, Canada’s Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) submitted its recommendations to the federal government for the management of Canada’s used nuclear waste. Based on current CANDU reactor operations, it was decided that a centralized deep geological repository was the most socially acceptable and safe method for the disposal of Canada’s used nuclear fuel.  NWMO only had to sell the concept to a receptive community.  But now the plans must change.  NWMO’s management plan did not account for the additional wastes that will be produced by future generations of nuclear reactors in Canada.  It’s time for NWMO to fess up.

Only one month after the NWMO submitted its Adaptive Phase Management plan, the Ontario Power Generation (OPG) began the approvals process to build up to four new reactors at the Darlington Nuclear Station east of Toronto.  These new reactors are of Generation III reactor design and differ significantly from all currently operating CANDU reactors in that they use enriched uranium as a fuel source.  All currently operating CANDU reactors in Canada use natural uranium as a fuel source.  Used enriched uranium fuel is more radioactive, particularly in long-lived radionuclides and therefore much more hazardous than used natural uranium fuel.

OPG is interested in the construction of Generation III reactor types at the Darlington Nuclear Station because these reactors appear to be more economically desirable than existing CANDU reactors.  This is because enriched uranium fuel has a higher burn-up than natural uranium fuel, essentially providing Canada’s nuclear power companies with a bigger bang for their buck.  However, these moves to improve the economics of Canada’s nuclear reactors will greatly increase reactor operational risks, as well as the hazards and challenges associated with the storage and disposal of new types of used nuclear fuel waste.  Thus, the switch to Generation III reactor designs may not be the cheapest and safest option for Canada in the long run. 

Environmental assessments of the proposed new reactor builds in Canada are failing to adequately examine the impact of radioactive waste production from a new generation of nuclear reactors.  Federal government agencies have excluded the long-term management of radioactive waste from the environmental assessments on new nuclear stations in Canada, citing the NWMO’s legislated responsibility for managing used nuclear waste in Canada.  The NWMO, however, has not at all demonstrated that these new wastes can be managed safely in the long term.  If new Generation III reactors are permitted at the Darlington Nuclear Site, the nuclear industry will have successfully accomplished a “bait and switch” approach to consulting a local community and proposing a socially and technically acceptable method for managing Canada’s used nuclear fuel.

Since March, 2010, RWMA has worked with Greenpeace Canada in identifying and evaluating the risks and costs that would be created by the use of enriched uranium in Generation III reactors at the Darlington Nuclear Site.  Visit Greenpeace Canada’s website at http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/ for more information on the proposed new builds at the Darlington Nuclear Station or click here for a copy of our report on the hazards of Generation III reactor fuel wastes.

 Electronic components associated with radar equipment can produce low-level x-radiation.

Exposure to Ionizing Radiation – was it on US Army’s Radar?

When in 1953 Mr. RS (he asked we not use his name) began working as a radar technician at the White Sands, New Mexico base of the U.S. Army, he did not suspect that his job would involve ionizing radiation.  Apparently, neither did the U.S. Army.  But when Mr. RS developed cancer years later, they still deny the connection.

While the radars themselves posed no risk of exposure, the electronic components, and particularly the magnetron and the high voltage tubes powering the equipment, produced low level x-radiation.  The army manuals show that the anode voltage for magnetrons can exceed the threshold for X-ray production.  Back in 1953, nothing shielded RS from the x-ray emitting components of the radar equipment.  In fact, he checked the temperature of the electron tubes by physically touching them whenever he needed to confirm that the equipment was in operation. The shack containing the equipment was no larger than 10x12 feet, making it impossible to escape the X-rays once inside.  Eight months of chronic exposure to the ionizing radiation and 44 years of lag time led the former technician to develop colon cancer and lymphoma attributable to the exposure.

RS did not suspect such a result, and neither did his former employer, the U.S. Army.  Even though the dose reconstruction evidence was laid out for the Army, so far they refused to accept the blame.  The Department of Veteran Affairs denied all claims stating their belief that the presented evidence is not sufficient to prove significant exposure, which caused his cancer.  It turns out that RS was caught in a bigger box; the Army has systemically turned down thousands of disability claims on specious grounds.

Despite the Army’s doubts, various studies have demonstrated the validity of x-ray emission from radar’s electron tubes.  The 2003 German Radar Commission Report concluded that during the operation, maintenance and repair of radar units, exposures to ionizing radiation and high-frequency radiation can occur and that this ionizing radiation arises from stray sources such as component parts and electron tubes, resulting in unwelcomed side effects.  A later study by the Second European International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA) Congress further investigated exposure related to radar equipment, focusing on the German Armed Forces.  They covered a large variety of radar equipment units and personnel that operate those, employing experts, mainly military technicians, to contribute technical information. They concluded that a lot of radar equipment prior to 1970 emitted elevated radiation levels.  Yet another study at the air defense site in the Miami-Homestead, Florida demonstrated x-radiation emitted by high vacuum power diode tubes associated with the air defense system.  A well-known accident, labeled the Lockport Incident, involved high exposures to 9 Air Force personnel as they stood next to an unshielded operating equipment.

What kind of evidence would be sufficient to prove a case like Mr. RS’s?  After eight years of court filings, the Army remains unconvinced and the case remains unresolved.  Apparently the issue is not a technical or scientific one, but a political matter.

In June we'll learn whether the DOE has the power to withdraw Yucca Mountain's license application

 for good.

Yucca Mountain Waste Repository. It’s Off?  It’s On?

“First you say, you do, and then you don’t.  Then you say you will and then you won’t.  You’re undecided now, but what are you going to do?”  When we last left off the fate of the Yucca Mountain repository was still up in the air.  It still is.  On March 3, 2010, the Department of Energy filed a motion with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to withdraw the license application for a high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain with prejudice – a legal status, as described by Steven Tetrault of the Washington Bureau, that would hammer the longest nails into the Yucca Mountain coffin (Las Vegas Review-Journal, March 13, 2010).  Secretary of Energy Steven Chu stated in the 10-page motion that “a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain is not a workable option for the long-term disposition of these [high-level radioactive waste] materials.”

To hammer the nails even further into the coffin, President Obama has allotted no room in the Fiscal Year 2011 budget request for the development of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.  The president has requested that the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (RW) be terminated by the end of FY 2010 and that any remaining funding from the FY 2010 Nuclear Waste Disposal and Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal appropriations be dedicated to RW project closeouts.  On April 22, 2010, the Senate budget committee approved a 2011 blueprint that according to Chairman Sen. Kent Conrad D-N.D. “supports the president’s request to close the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository,” (Las Vegas Review-Journal, April 22, 2010). Furthermore, a 15-member Blue Ribbon Commission appointed by Secretary Chu and co-chaired by former Congressman Lee Hamilton and former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft has already begun investigating alternative strategies for the management and disposal of the United State’s stores of high-level radioactive waste.  The commission is expected to produce an interim report within 18 months and a final report within 24 months.

So what’s the problem?  It’s over, right?  Not so fast.  The utilities, Nye County, the Nuclear Energy Institute (a pro-nuclear lobby group) and some States have gone to federal court, to oppose the withdrawal of the application. The State of Washington has filed a federal lawsuit to stop the dismantling of the Yucca Mountain repository.  The State argues that since Congress designated Yucca Mountain as our country’s nuclear dump after almost 20 years of investigation, the Department of Energy, even after orders were given from President Obama, does not have the authority to close the repository down.  Washington stores nearly two-thirds of the nation’s defense related high-level radioactive waste and believes it will “suffer irreparable harm” if the Yucca Mountain repository is closed.  Washington is joined by four other petitioners, the State of South Carolina, Aiken County, South Carolina, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, and the Prairie Island Indian Community in opposition to President Obama’s orders to shut down Yucca Mountain.

A hearing on the DOE’s motion to withdraw the Yucca Mountain license application is now scheduled for June 3^rd and 4^th in Las Vegas.  All progress on the Construction Authorization Board’s decision regarding the fate of Yucca Mountain will remain on hold until DOE’s motion is resolved.   Keep the champagne on ice.

Back to newsletter

Radon concentration measurements at the

Cotter Uranium Mill can be interpreted differently based on statistics.

Mysteries of Radon Concentrations at the Cotter Uranium Mill

Answer the riddle: “The uranium mill tailings pile releases more radon every year, but the radon concentrations at the perimeter of the site are declining.  How could this be?” Well, as Mark Twain put it, “There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.”

While the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) seems to think that the answer is “dissipation of radon into the atmosphere,” we are more concerned with the validity of the initial conclusion and are continuing to investigate the situation.  CDPHE believes radon concentrations at the fence post are no higher than background.  Of course, this depends on where you are measuring background, no?

Canon City Milling Facility in south central Colorado belongs to Cotter Corporation and consists of an active uranium mill currently in stand down and an active tailings pile, which includes a primary and a secondary impoundment.  The mill has been a Superfund site since 1984 after years of releasing radioactive materials and metals into the environment.  Part of its remedial action plan includes the prevention of radon release from the tailings pile into the atmosphere.

In order to prevent radon emanation the two impoundments were covered with water.  Cotter claims that the secondary impoundment, completely under water, posed no threat to radon concentrations in the air.  However, the pond covering the primary impoundment has been shrinking and exposing more beach area.  In order to comply with EPA’s regulations, radon-222 emissions to ambient air from a tailings pile must not exceed an average of 20 pCi/m2-s.  Cotter collects annual radon flux measurements at the exposed tailings beach and dry soil areas of the impoundment.  From 2006 until 2008 the radon flux has increased by 230% and in 2008 was just under the emanation limit.

Meanwhile, Cotter concluded that, during the same time period, the radon concentrations at the mill perimeter have decreased by 30%.  Does this intuitively make sense?  No, but it could have something to do with Cotter’s data analysis method and the use of poor statistics that fudge background radon concentrations.  RWMA has been working on disentangling the data and Cotter’s analysis method to answer the riddle.  Stay tuned.

Back to newsletter

A recently-passed law excludes Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia as a radiogenic cancer and prevents patients from applying for compensation.

Ionizing Radiation and Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)

The Energy Employee Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) was enacted to award compensation and medical benefits to individuals with cancer who were exposed to ionizing radiation while working at certain Department of Energy facilities.  Recently, the U.S. Government has excluded Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) as a radiogenic form of cancer, automatically rejecting workers who develop CLL the right to compensation and medical benefits.

Now, you might be wondering, what makes CLL so different from all the other types of leukemia?  As its name suggests, CLL is a slow-progressing cancer affecting B cell lymphocytes and it is actually the most common type of adult leukemia in the Western world.  So, how is it that the most common type of leukemia is considered to be entirely insensitive to ionizing radiation effects, whereas this is not the case for all other types of leukemia?

The answer lies in the fact that there are several limitations in all existing studies regarding the relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation and the development of CLL.  The exposures of Japanese Atomic Bomb survivors may not be comparable to U.S. workers, as Japanese A-bomb survivors received acute, external exposures to radiation whereas U.S. workers most often receive chronic exposures to low doses of internal and external radiation.  CLL is a slow-progressing cancer and therefore may not form after exposure to an acute dose of external radiation.  Death certificate-based studies may also not be the best approach for studying the development of CLL, as CLL has a low morbidity rate and does not usually lead to death.  Thus, the relationship between the development of CLL and exposure to ionizing radiation may have been completely overlooked by these studies.

In addition, it has been found in several studies with prolonged exposure lag assumptions that incidence of CLL usually does not occur within the first 20 years following exposure to ionizing radiation.  Therefore, epidemiological studies that have not been carried out for greater than 20 years will most likely show no evidence between ionizing radiation exposures and the development of CLL.

Furthermore, previous classification schemes used for diagnosing different types of leukemia have demonstrated that CLL may have been misdiagnosed in the past.  Until recent medical developments, this disease could have been diagnosed as CLL by one physician and as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma by another.  In addition, it has recently been determined that CLL is almost morphologically and clinically identical to small Lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), a subtype of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, providing even more evidence that CLL may have been misdiagnosed, or undetected, in the past.

So what do you think?  Should CLL’s sensitivity to ionizing radiation effects be reconsidered under the Energy Employee Occupational Illness Compensation Act?  We sure do!  For more information, click here to read the article, “Ionizing Radiation and Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia” by David B. Richardson and more.

 

RWMA  is a New York  City-based consulting firm established in 1989.  Our expert team of scientists and engineers evaluate the impact of proposed and existent radioactive waste facilities to assist organizations that are faced with nuclear waste management issues.