ARTICLE - "Sandia's pit of unknown wastes requires cleanup, not stewardship"

Commentary by Susan Dayton

I'd like to commend the Albuquerque Tribune and journalist Blake Likins
for their front page feature, "Stewardship Scorcher," an in-depth
article on the Mixed Waste Landfill (MWL), a contaminated site
containing both radioactive and chemical waste dumped into unlined pits
and trenches over a period of thirty years at Sandia National
Laboratories (SNL). Instead of clean up the MWL is proposed for
long-term monitoring under a program called "stewardship." The sheer
amount of information, complexity of technical jargon, and other related
issues Ms. Likins had to deal with while conducting her research was
undoubtedly staggering. With this in mind I'd like to comment on a few
statements that were made in the article by the Department of Energy and
Sandia National Labs (DOE/SNL):

1. The article states "critics claim DOE is afraid of what it may
uncover if it digs up the landfill." It's not just a claim by critics of
DOE 's proposed plan for the MWL. John Gould, DOE, has also admitted
he's concerned about coming across unexpected things in the MWL that
could make excavation more difficult. Uncertainties in the inventory of
the landfill is another reason why it should be cleaned up.
2. The article estimates the cost of clean-up of the MWL at $30
million;
it is too dangerous to clean up; there is no where to put the waste.
This figure is the result of "pencil pushing" as a formal feasibility
study outlining clean up costs has not yet been conducted. Clean up is
completely "do-able." Much worse contaminated sites at other DOE
facilities have been safely "cleaned up" with waste placed in temporary
storage. There is no 100% safe place to store this waste; however,
"storing" radioactive and chemical waste in unlined pits and trenches
above Albuquerque's aquifer is unacceptable. Representatives from
DOE/SNL have stated that if the public wants the MWL cleaned up they
will clean it up. At the same time they continue to state it can't be
cleaned up.
3. The article states there are "200 waste sites" at Sandia and all
are
being cleaned up except the MWL. This is not true. According to Denise
Bleakly, SNL, there are approximately 189 contaminated sites proposed
for "stewardship" or long-term monitoring activities at SNL. Clean up of
some form has been implemented at most of these; however, the MWL is
unique at SNL as no clean up of any kind has even been attempted.
4. The article quotes Bill Rhodes, SNL, in stating that if waste
from
the landfill were to leak into the ground today it wouldn't be a "major
threat" and "rocks and soil tend to filter stuff out." This is
speculation; without all the facts in front of him one cannot conclude
this would be the case. However, the landfill contains waste that will
be hazardous for centuries, subject to climate change, human activity,
social and economic changes, and human error. The complete contents of
the landfill are not known, making it a wild card as to what substances
might be buried that could aid in migration of contamination. Also, over
time it is unclear what the combined effects of radioactive materials
will be with other pollutants that have leaked into our groundwater like
jet fuel, TCE (a cancer-causing solvent), pesticides, and other
pollutants.
Mr. Rhodes' statement, "rocks and soil tend to filter stuff out" is not
only ludicrous, but demeaning to an intelligent and informed public.
Rocks and soil do not filter out radiation and hazardous chemical
wastes. If rocks and soil could actually "filter stuff out" DOE could
save millions using rocks and soil instead of expensive and often
ineffective technologies to clean up contamination in groundwater!
5. The article states the "hot" or most dangerous waste in the
landfill will have decayed to safe levels by the year 2014. The
majority of the radioactive waste buried in the MWL is extremely
long-lived, and may be more dangerous than the smaller amounts of "hot"
radioactive debris such as cobalt-60 that will decay faster. Low-level
waste and its decay by-products (also known as "daughters") will remain
hazardous for centuries. The term "low level" is deceiving; low-level
radioactive waste has been linked with cancers, childhood leukemia,
kidney failure, and a number of other illnesses. Another concern is the
chemical toxicity associated with some of the low-level radioactive
waste in the landfill, such as depleted uranium.
5. The article is unclear when it links a statement made by myself
that
multiple sampling is "bad science." I don't disagree with multiple
sampling; however, I think it's bad science when two samples show
evidence of plutonium contamination, and the one that doesn't is chosen
to support Sandia's conclusion that there's no plutonium in the soil
beneath the MWL. In my opinion, SNL should have conducted further
analyses to defend their position.
7. The article includes a statement made by Fran Nimick, SNL, that
Dr.
Mark Baskaran, the independent scientist who was commissioned to do the
assessment of the MWL "could have done a better job." Of course Sandia
would like the public to believe that Dr. Baskaran did a bad job when he
found radioactive contamination at the landfill, but it is in fact
Sandia that could have done a better job. According to Dr. Baskaran, the
quality of the data submitted to him by SNL was of poor quality, missing
or unavailable. Also, Dr. Baskaran stated that very few samples were
taken over the years by SNL to assess the likelihood of radionuclide
contamination from the MWL.
8. The article states the "Labs' activities are watched over" by
the
Citizens Advisory Board (CAB). It's believed by many that CAB activities
have been watched over by the Labs. The CAB is funded and managed by
DOE/SNL. This is why in part, the public knows very little about the MWL
or other contaminated sites at SNL. It wasn't until our group, Citizen
Action, brought these issues to the forefront that the public became
aware of these issues. The CAB will be disbanded in September.

The story published on the MWL comes on the heels of a report recently
released by the National Academy of Sciences on DOE's "stewardship"
program, which happens to be the plan proposed for the MWL. The report
states that DOE does not have the technology, money, or management
abilities to prevent contamination from spreading at sites containing
radioactive waste that will remain hazardous for centuries.
Additionally, the report states that stewardship "controls" are already
breaking down at some sites, migration of contaminants is already
occurring, and "others will follow."

Communities have a right in deciding whether or not they want a
hazardous waste dump in their backyard that might affect them or their
children's health at some point in the future. Discussions on ways to
safely clean up the MWL, alternative waste containment methods, public
health issues, and community values have been absent from this debate.
This is a recipe for disaster when communities are looked to by DOE/SNL
in helping prevent future contamination from occurring at such sites.

Whether contamination has or has not occurred, preventive measures need
to be imposed to assure that contaminants from the MWL will not pose a
risk to future generations. Further precision testing of the air, water
and soil around the MWL need to be conducted to determine, once and for
all, if contamination from the MWL has reached the groundwater.
Additionally, a formal feasibility study is in order to investigate the
actual clean-up costs of this dump. Instead of coming up with reasons
why the MWL can't be cleaned up, we need to challenge DOE/SNL to
concentrate on creating new technologies for clean up of contaminated
sites.

To find out what you can do to help get the dump cleaned up, join our
coalition, request a presentation or other information call Citizen
Action: 280-1844 or visit our website at www.radfreenm.com.

Susan Dayton
Citizen Action To Clean Up Albuquerque's Nuclear Waste Dump