=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL’S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #336
— May 6, 1993 —
News and resources for environmental justice.
——
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org
==========
The Back issues and Index
are available
here.
The official RACHEL archive is here.
It’s updated constantly.
To subscribe, send E-mail to rachel-
weekly-
request@world.std.com
with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It’s free.
===Previous Issue==========================================Next Issue===
SO FAR, A TERRIBLE YEAR FOR NUCLEAR POWER
The civilian nuclear power industry has been hammered
relentlessly by bad news throughout 1993.
Subhead: “Safe” Doses of Radiation Cause Cancer
Researchers re-examined health records of 8318 white male workers
at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and confirmed what an
earlier study had shown: that the occurrence of leukemia is 63
percent higher among atomic workers at the plant than among
average U.S. white males.[1] Oak Ridge was established in
Tennessee in 1943 to develop plutonium for A-bombs. The study
has caused consternation throughout the nuclear industry because
the vast majority of ORNL workers were exposed to levels far
below those considered dangerous today. (See RHWN #244.)
The new study confirms three important conclusions: that one rem
(1000 millirems) of gamma radiation exposure caused a 5 percent
increase in the risk of cancer among workers; that the cancer
risk from low levels of radiation is about 10 times greater than
had previously been deduced from observation of radiation victims
in Japanese cities bombed during WW II; and that low doses of
radiation delivered over a long period of time seem to be more
efficient at causing cancer than higher doses delivered during a
short period of time. (Nuclear advocates have long maintained
that the opposite was true, that low doses of radioactivity
delivered over many years were benign, or perhaps even good for
you–a theory called hormesis.) (Rems are units of radiation
exposure; a millirem is 1/1000 of a rem.)
All of these conclusions are very bad news for the nuclear
industry. They indicate that today’s permissible radiation
standards are dangerously lax.
The median cumulative dose to workers at ORNL was 140 millirems,
meaning half the workers received more than that and half
received less during their entire working life at ORNL. The mean
(average) cumulative dose was 1.73 rems (1730 millirems).
According to U.S. EPA, medical radiation workers receive a dose
of 150 millirems EACH YEAR; flight crews average 170 millirems
EACH YEAR; industrial radiographers average 430 millirems EACH
YEAR. Workers at nuclear power plants average 650 millirems EACH
YEAR.[2] Thus an average worker at a nuclear power plant
receives as much radiation in 3 years (1950 millirems) as the
average ORNL worker received during all his or her working years.
Reducing worker exposures at nuclear plants would be very costly,
perhaps prohibitively costly.
Subhead: Brits Lower Permissible Exposure Standards
The British National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) in
April officially lowered the permissible amount of radiation
exposure for atomic workers and for the public in the UK,
according to the LONDON GUARDIAN.[3] Reacting to 1980s data from
A-bomb victims in Japanese cities showing that radiation is more
dangerous than previously supposed, the NRPB reduced permissible
annual exposures for workers to 2 rem from the previous 5 rem.
The U.S. continues to allow radiation exposures of 5 rem per year
for atomic workers, a guideline established in 1956, though most
exposures average just a little over 0.5 rem per year.
The NRPB also reduced the permissible exposure to the British
public from any one source to 33 millirems per year. The U.S.
continues to allow the public to be exposed to 100 millirems each
year from any single source. Natural background exposes most
people (at sea level) to about 100 millirems per year, so the
U.S. standard allows any single source (such as a nuclear power
plant) to double the radiation exposure of members of the general
public.
The British tightening of standards will increase pressure to
lower U.S. standards. In the past, U.S. officials have sometimes
been able to hold out for a decade in the face of diminishing
radiation standards worldwide, but eventually the pressure
becomes too great and U.S. nuclear standards come into line. The
only argument against tight standards is that they are expensive
for the nuclear industry.
Subhead: Chernobyl Cancers Appear Unexpectedly
In late April, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced new
findings of thyroid cancer among children affected by radiation
released during the fire at Chernobyl in the Soviet Union April
26, 1986.[4] The agency reported that 168 cases of thyroid
cancer have occurred in children in Belarus since the disaster.
During the seven years prior to the blast, only seven cases of
thyroid cancer had occurred in children in that area. When these
findings were first published in September, 1992, a team of five
World Health Organization radiation scientists said, “We believe
that experience in Belarus suggests that the consequences to the
human thyroid, especially in fetuses and young children, of the
carcinogenic effects of radioactive fallout is much greater than
previously thought.” The cancers started appearing in 1990, only
4 years after the Chernobyl accident. Previously scientists had
believed cancer developed only after a delay much greater than 4
years. In addition, the thyroid cancers in children in Belarus
were much more aggressive than thyroid cancers had previously
appeared to be; they spread to the lungs and elsewhere with
deadly speed.[5] (An optimistic report by the U.S. Department of
Energy had appeared in SCIENCE magazine in late 1988 saying that
perhaps zero cancers would result from the Chernobyl disaster.)[6]
Subhead: Dismantling Reactors is Shockingly Expensive
The WALL STREET JOURNAL reported in January that dismantling a
nuclear reactor in Colorado is costing more that the plant
originally cost to build.[7] The Fort St. Vrain reactor is
relatively small as reactors go (330 megawatts, about one-sixth
the size of a large reactor); it cost $224 million to build, but
is costing $333 million to dismantle.
The story at Fort St. Vrain, 35 miles north of Denver, is
particularly important because the reactor is of an advanced
design now being touted as “inherently safe,” an example of what
the “next generation” of reactors will be like. It is cooled by
helium instead of water and proponents say its atomic fuel cannot
“melt down” (as happened at Chernobyl and at Three Mile Island)
and therefore the reactor is “inherently safe.”
Indeed the reactor at Fort St. Vrain had an admirable safety
record. No accidents, no unusual radiation leaks, no meltdowns.
But there was such a long list of breakdowns and costly repairs
that the plant’s owners shut it down for good after only 10 years
of operation. The company figures the plant operated only 15
percent of the time. “Our nuclear plant didn’t work,” says Mark
Stutz, a spokesperson for Public Service Co. of Colorado, the
owner.
After they shut the plant, owners discovered the really bad news:
taking the plant apart is difficult, dangerous and exceedingly
costly. The plant has been such a nightmare that descendants of
the plant’s namesake, 1830s pioneer Marcellin St. Vrain, asked
that the plant be called something else, to save the family from
embarrassment.
The other 110 operating reactors in the U.S. are facing high
shutdown costs; 25 percent of them are also facing early closure
in the next few years because they are too expensive to run
profitably, says the WALL STREET JOURNAL.
The owners of these plants are “utterly unprepared” to pay the
high costs of dismantling, says the WALL STREET JOURNAL,
predicting decades-long fights between utility customers and
utility shareholders over who must pay the huge bills.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the federal government’s
safety watchdog for the nuclear industry, is holding a series of
hearings around the country right now, trying to establish levels
of local radiation that will be “acceptable” after a plant is
dismantled. The higher the acceptable radiation levels, the
cheaper the dismantling job will be. This is the NRC’s latest
attempt to define levels of radiation that are “below regulatory
concern” (BRC). On earlier BRC attempts, see RHWN #183 and #185.
To learn more, phone NRC at (301) 504-2240 and request their
paper en-titled, “Proposed Rulemaking to Establish Radiological
Criteria for Decommissioning: Issues for Discussion at
Workshops,” or write Office of Public Affairs, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
Subhead: Citizens Aim to Stop Ohio Nuke’s Air Emissions
After four leaking fuel bundles were discovered at the Perry
nuclear power plant in Ohio in January, local citizens announced
they’ll press for a referendum November 2, 1993, to ban the
release of radioactive air pollution from the Perry plant. Such
a ban would very likely require the plant to close. The 1250
megawatt plant opened in 1986.
Such a referendum might set a powerful precedent, establishing
that air and water belong to the public and that local laws can
prohibit polluters from using them as waste dumps.[8]
AND THE YEAR ISN’T YET HALF OVER.
–Peter Montague, Ph.D.
===============
[3] Tim Radford, “Safe Radiation Dose Levels Cut,” GUARDIAN April
27, 1993, pg. 5.
Descriptor terms: oak ridge national laboratory; ornl;
radiation; standards; cancer; hormesis; occupational safety and
health; nuclear power; nuclear safety; uk; great britain; british
national radiological protection board; nrpb; worker safety;
background radiation; chernobyl; belarus; thyroid cancer;
children; childhood cancer; world health organization; us doe; us
department of energy; decommissioning; fort st. vrain; co; who;
colorado; htgr; inherently safe; brc; below regulatory concern;
perry; ohio; oh; high temperature gas cooled reactors; leaks; air
pollution; referendums; regulation; citizen action;