This project has been funded by a grant from the League of Women Voters Education Fund (LWVEF) and the Department of Energy.

The Cincinnati Area Nuclear Waste Education

Project on Civilian and Defense Waste,

Using a Computer-Based Forum

The League of Women Voters of the Cincinnati Area

Project Manager: Mickey Croyle

Project: To utilize the Productivity On Line (POL) computer network to establish a single-night open forum for communication by individual citizens and groups on Nuclear Waste Problems including low level waste. POL and TriState On Line (TSO), local computer networks, will also be used throughout the grant period for the purpose of generating an ongoing electronic discussion of Nuclear Waste Issues in the Cincinnati area.

Project Summary

Nuclear waste is a major concern for Ohio, a state with 57 low-level generating sites, two nuclear power plants, and the Mound Plant. The Cincinnati area is particularly concerned because of the presence of 11 low-level generating sites and the Fernald SuperFund Clean-up Site. Education of the public community, including our own members, is essential for citizen participation in the decision-making process on how to deal with nuclear waste.

We will host an open two-hour forum/conference for the discussion of nuclear waste issues. Invited participants will start the conference with a brief summary statement of their roles/positions and concerns or questions on nuclear waste issues. Other groups and citizens will be invited to participate to learn more about nuclear waste and to provide insight on how to deal with the waste issues. The LWVCA will serve as moderator of the discussion to ensure that the language utilized is understandable and that all sides are heard. The entire dialog of the forum will be captured for downloading. This is the summary publication to be distributed throughout the community.

Specific Aims

To utilize an open conference area on both POL and TSO computer networks for an ongoing e-mail discussion during the entire grant period, and to moderate a discussion of nuclear waste issues during a POL open forum to:

• provide for the education of citizens and our members on nuclear waste issues
• provide for citizen participation in discussion of nuclear waste issues and concerns
• publish a summary of the computer discussion.

Following is an edited transcript of the live computer conference held on April 23, 1995 from 12 noon until 2 p.m. Because of a variety of different problems, many of the invited participants were unable to log on. We have, however, included their responses to each question. Actual participants' names are indicated by bold typeface, while others' are in a normal typeface. People who observed the conference are listed in italics. The conference began with an introduction and statement of the rules, which had previously been posted.

List of Participants

Participants of the Live Conference

Mickey Croyle - LWVCA moderator

Marilyn Wall - Miami Group Sierra Club

Steve James - Liaison Officer with Ohio EPA LLRW Project

Debbie Davidson

Observers of the Live Conference

• Carl Gandola
• Chris Utley
• Dan Langen
• Suzanne Lachapelle
• Cathy Lamberth
• Helen Hunter
• J. Collins
• MacLair
• Stephen R. Kramer
• Larry Pranger
• Mike Smith
• J. Michael Collins
  

Invited Participants Who Provided Answers to the Questions, but were unable to attend

Dora Dority and Edward Currie - Network Advocating Legislation Stopping Environmental Toxicity (NALSET)

SKW - a radiation worker

Andrea Tanner - DOE Fernald

Lisa Crawford - (Fernald Residents for Environmental Safety and Health)

FRESH, Inc

Dr. Vlasta Molak - an environmentalist

Introduction and Rules

Mickey Croyle: Welcome to the Cincinnati Area Nuclear Waste Education Live Computer Conference. The purpose of this forum is for communication by citizens and groups on the nuclear waste problems of the Cincinnati area.

The Cincinnati area has particular concern because of the presence of 11 low-level generating sites and the Fernald SuperFund Clean-up site.

Education of the public/community is essential for citizen participation in the decision-making process of how to deal with nuclear waste. Your participation in the process will make a significant contribution. A brief reminder of the rules for the forum to ensure that all sides are heard:

-- You will post your introductory comment of eight lines or less when called upon in alphabetical order.

-- I will pose each question; you will answer in turn alphabetically. Type a "g" at the end of the response to signify "go ahead."

-- The response will be 20 lines or less; at 16 lines, ìLLî will indicate approaching line limit.

-- After each response, 30 seconds will be allowed for reading the material.

-- After everyone has responded, you may have 8 lines to reply to a response previously given or to add an additional comment. LL at 6 lines will warn of the limitís approach.

-- There will be a 15-second period after the last reply has been entered to allow for the reading of these materials.

-- This process will be repeated for each question.

-- There is a two-hour time limit, so there may not be enough time to answer all three questions. We will then use the ongoing bulletin board to post the answers and reply to the responses.

-- You will conclude with a short remark of 8 lines or less; the League will then conclude with a Thank you and a brief summary.

Steve James, will you please post your introductory comment?

Introductory Comments by the Participants

Steve James: I am a Liaison Officer with the Ohio EPA LLRW Project. Our office is responsible for responding to requests for information related to LLRW issues from members of the Ohio General Assembly, the public, and the media. We are also charged with facilitating passage of enabling legislation to allow Ohio to fulfill its responsibility to site a regional LLRW disposal facility as host state for the Midwest Compact.

Mickey Croyle: Marilyn Wall, please add your introduction.

Marilyn Wall: I am the conservation chair for Miami Group Sierra Club and also a board member of Rivers Unlimited.

Mickey Croyle: Debbie, do you want to introduce yourself?

Debbie Davidson: Hi, I'm Debbie Davidson, member of the Natural Resources Committee of LWVCA. My interest is in regulatory and legislative issues around LLRW, e.g., how can the ordinary citizen impact the process?

Question I

Mickey Croyle: Transportation of radioactive materials is of common concern for both DOE/Fernald waste and low-level civilian waste. What is essential to ensure safe transport of waste? Who should be notified of waste shipments?

Steve James: There are three requirements for the safe transport of low-level radioactive waste: 1. Proper packaging regulations, to ensure that the waste is in a form and package type that will withstand handling, shipment, and ultimate disposal; 2. Proper manifesting, to ensure that an accurate and detailed record is available of the waste being transported; and 3. Proper monitoring of the waste, both while en route and upon arrival at the disposal site, to ensure container integrity and compliance with all applicable regulations.

Marilyn Wall: Public notification is essential as is emergency response. There have been over 1600 incidents involving LLRW since 1971.

The safety record of the transportation system (drivers, rail conditions, etc.) should be added to the requirements Steve listed.

Mickey Croyle: Steve, do you want to add further comments to Question 1?

Steve James: A report of incidents may be misleading. There reports of 64 ìincidentsî involving radioactive materials in Ohio over the past twenty years. Yet, only four of these actually involved LLRW, and none of them resulted in radiological injury or damage. The remainder of these ìincidentsî involved other uses of radioactive materials, such as transport of radiopharmaceuticals to a hospital. Some of these reported incidents were the theft of a gauging device containing a radioactive source from a contractorís pick-up truck.

Marilyn Wall: I believe we need to plan with the understanding that ìincidentsî will occur and work to prevent them and be able to respond when they occur.

Debbie Davidson: Mickey, I have an issue around transportation. In Columbus, the outer belt (I-270) is designated a hazardous waste route for the area. What is the potential for the same thing occurring in Cincinnati?

Mickey Croyle: Do either of you wish to comment on Debbie Davidsonís question?

Steve James: I believe this would be more appropriately addressed by another office or agency.

Marilyn Wall: Controlling and monitoring hazardous and toxic waste transport has been difficult due to interstate regulations and prohibitions on interfering with interstate commerce. Cincinnati has tried.

Debbie Davidson: In other words, because our geographic area crosses state lines instead of being a part of one state, weíre out of luck?

Mickey Croyle: To expand further on the notification.....when and how should notification of waste shipments occur?

Marilyn Wall: There have been temporary bans due to construction and hazardous conditions, but most indicators are that you canít interfere.

Steve James: Our opinion is that prior notification for LLRW shipments is not required due to the regulations that exist and the level of safety they provide.

Debbie Davidson: Who would potentially be notified--hazmat until, law enforcement agencies, others?

Marilyn Wall: The public has a right to know because they are potentially affected.*

Debbie Davidson: I would hate to see public notification of LLRW shipments, because it would give people one more thing to worry about, like right-wing bombers, etc.

Response from "nonparticipants":

NALSET - Dority/Currie: We would like to preface our remarks by stating that as a position, NALSET is totally against the creation, production, manufacturing, processing, mining, and tilling of radioactive materials used in providing nuclear energy, medicine, defense, and by-products.

The essential ingredient to insure safe transport of radioactive waste is NOT to transport it or move it, therefore limiting direct contamination of the publicís health (in particular, that of the children) and the environment in areas which are relatively safe from increased levels of radiation at present. The portion of the questions as to who should be notified of radioactive waste shipments is totally erroneous. Everyone has a right to know prior to, during and after the transportation of any shipment of radioactive waste.

SKW: Safe transport is dependent on proper containment, containment vessels are available that can contain shipments through any accident. Law enforcement officials should be notified of all shipments.

*At this point, a computer problem inadvertently logged Marilyn Wall off; she will return to participate later in the conference.

Andrea Tanner, DOE: Fernald waste and low-level civilian waste is packaged to meet the criterion specified by the US Department of Transportation and the Public Utilities Commission. Both of these agencies at the federal and state level are responsible for oversight when transporting regulated waste.

Lisa Crawford, FRESH, Inc.: All shipments of radioactive waste must follow all regulations for shipping of this type of material (EPA, NRC, DOT, etc.). Records must be kept and made public as a form of accountability. Everyone along the train/truck/etc. routes should be notified. This could be done through public education, media reporting and press releases by DOE, the State, or other agencies.

Dr. Vlasta Molak, an environmentalist: It is near to impossible to have ìsafe shipmentî of waste. A better approach with low level radioactive waste, which comes mostly from nuclear industry, would be to store it at the current production sites. Small amounts of medical waste could be handled as before.

Question II

Mickey Croyle: The long-term storage of nuclear waste is of concern for the DOE/Fernald Waste and Low Level Civilian Waste. Who will ensure long-term monitoring and safe storage of nuclear waste in Ohio? Who should be involved in the monitoring process at the waste storage sites? First, Steve James.

Steve James: The regulatory agency for radioactive materials and LLRW will be responsible for ensuring the long-term monitoring and safe disposal of low level radioactive waste. Under the Agreement State provisions of Am. Sub. S.B. 19, the Ohio Department of Health will serve as the regulatory agency.

Debbie Davidson: Which agency? Yours?

Steve James: If Ohio does not become an Agreement State, this responsibility will remain with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Monitoring of a disposal site should not be the sole responsibility of the regulators. The local community should also be involved in the process through all phases of development and operation. The Ohio enabling legislation calls for such community participation through the formation of Local Monitoring Committees in each of the three sites undergoing characterization, with the Committee in the selected host community remaining as a permanent entity. In addition, there is a provision in the legislation for the host community to hire an independent, qualified resident inspector who will work with the Stateís own resident inspector to monitor operations once the facility opens.

Mickey Croyle: Debbie, do you wish to respond to Question II? Then other questions could be posed.

Debbie Davidson: Is funding provided in the legislation for the host community to hire the inspector?

Steve James: Yes, through the Board of the development authority.*

Mickey Croyle: We are answering the second question. Since you have it, please respond.

Marilyn Wall: First, the LLRW shouldnít include waste with long half lives. Long-term storage has more problems that shorter term. Even short-term cost is an issue. Government may not have the resources for long- or short-term monitoring, and the generators may not be around to contribute in the future. Most hospital waste could be stored on-site because it has a short half life, but long-term storage isnít adequately addressed in the compacts or by S.B. 19.

*At this point, Marilyn Wall reentered the conference.

Debbie Davidson: Marilyn, how do you thing the long-term storage issue could be addressed?

Marilyn Wall: Considering the length of ìlong term,î I'm not sure there are any good ways. Fewer sites would be better, but reducing the generation of radioactive waste is an imperative.

Debbie Davidson: How do we reduce the waste stream?

Response from nonparticipants:

NALSET - Dority/Currie: To even pose this question of monitoring and ìsafeî storage of radioactive waste reflects a lack of knowledge as to the legislation governing nuclear power production and usage, as well as a lack of awareness of and active participation in the laws that govern our health, safety and environment as it relates to radioactive waste. We find this disturbing. Again, all activities and monitoring processes at radioactive waste facilities should be a matter of public information and record accessible to everyone. Storage is no solution. It is only a postponement (wishfully) of the inevitable. We are only making a mess which our children and future generations (forbidding any unforeseen natural or man-made disaster) will eventually have to face (medically, environmentally, water, food, etc.).

It has been estimated that our supply of uranium in this country will be depleted within the next 40 years. We will eventually run out of the means to produce nuclear energy, however the effects of its waste is given a conservative lifespan of 24,000 years.

We must begin to use common sense when we address our energy needs and decide some forms are not worth the cost in human life or quality of life. We must understand that there is a serious problems when we are told that radiation from man-made sources are no more dangerous than that already found in nature. Particularly when at the same time, man is burying this waste in special salt-lines areas encased in specially lined containers 1,400 feet down into the earth.

SKW: All waste that cannot be decayed in storage should be maintained as retrievable, allowing future technology access. NRC should regulate.

Andrea Tanner, DOE: The OEPA and U.S.EPA should ensure long-term monitoring and safe storage of nuclear waste at Fernald and in Ohio. Usually around SuperFund sites, the grass roots movement is strong. With the community watching over these agencies, little is likely to go unnoticed or unchallenged, if it does not satisfy the community and others who have a stake in the future of these sites.

Lisa Crawford, FRESH, Inc.: DOE should and will have to be accountable and monitor their stored waste. With regard to the LLRW waste, the OEPA and Department of Health (would prefer only OEPA to do this, maybe have input from ODH, only). Ultimately, the state and federal government will have to be held responsible and accountable for these wastes.

Dr. Vlasta Molak, an environmentalist: There should be an independent citizen board that would oversee Ohio EPA and Federal EPA monitoring of the waste storage sites. Citizens that live in the vicinity of these sites should be part of that board, and environmental organizations should also have representatives on it.

Question III

Mickey Croyle: Siting, construction, and operation of a facility for storage of radioactive waste, as well as clean-up of contaminated sites, can have significant effects on communities, public health, the environment, and the economy. What are the three most important qualities essential for the selection of a Low Level Radioactive Waste site? What should the top three priorities for clean-up at Fernald be?

Steve James: The three most important qualities for selection of a LLRW disposal site are: 1. Siting criteria that are protective of the public health and the environment; 2. Sufficient data on the characteristics of the State of Ohio in order to properly apply the siting criteria that have been established; and 3. A well-defined process with multiple opportunities for public participation during all phases of the selection process.

Marilyn Wall: Siting is political and expensive. It needs to be more scientific. Neighboring communities and host states will bear the burden of any future problems and the most protective possible siting criteria must be used--not just the usual ìthis area needs the jobs.î S.B. 19, as introduced, allows siting over an aquifer, if there is no well-head within 1000 feet.

Debbie Davidson: Do you think this siting criteria is good or bad?

Steve James: We believe that the siting criteria in Am. Sub. S.B. 19 are protective and will allow for the safe siting of a facility somewhere in Ohio.

Marilyn Wall: We want to see siting criteria that are as stringent and protective as possible. S.B. 19 needs more consideration.

Debbie Davidson: What are you doing to be a part of the legislative process, either as an individual or as a member of the Sierra Club, Marilyn?

Marilyn Wall: Sierra Club has commented extensively on S.B. 19 in Columbus. Weíve raised money to help provide information on problems with the compact and have provided speakers and information to the legislators.

Steve James: I would encourage anyone interested in this issue to get a copy of the amended bill as it was passed by the Senate, read it, and comment on it. We have received many comments so far, and some were offered as amendments to the bill.

Debbie Davidson: What would you recommend that other interested individuals/groups do to participate? Lobby?

Also, a quick question as a novice LLRW person: werenít we thrown out of the Midwest Compact as a result of not passing enabling legislation by 7/1/94?

Steve James: No, what happened was our access to the disposal facility in Barnwell was stopped on 7/1/94, as was everyone else's who had been using it prior to that, with the exception of the members of the Southwest Compact.

Mickey Croyle: Marilyn, what do you mean by the billís needing further consideration?

Marilyn Wall: Weíre still in the compact. Michigan left it. As to S.B. 19, we have concerns about the definition of LLRW--mainly the including of long-term waste, siting criteria, responsibility to the states without necessary authority. For example, the compact has six unelected commissioners who can overrule Ohio or local laws! Costs are another big, big concern, especially future costs. Most of this waste is from nuclear power--very little is medical and research. Handling medical separately would be a much more manageable process and should be considered. We also have concerns about the track record of those building such sites in Pennsylvania, Nebraska, and Kentucky. How do we avoid these problems? What will the total financial outlay be? U.S. Ecology in Nebraska has received $85 million, and Nebraska hasnít yet licensed a site.

Mickey Croyle: Steve, do you want to respond to Marilynís concerns?

Steve James: In response to Marilynís comment, I would like to point out that Michigan did not leave the Midwest Compact; they were expelled for failure to fulfill their obligations as host state. Regarding the unelected commissioners, Ohio negotiated for a two-year period to amend the existing Midwest Compact to gain additional assurances for Ohio as host state. Some of these changes called for the veto authority of the host state over many important decisions, such as capacity of the facility and operating time. As these amendments were discussed in the Senate, some of the provisions were also added elsewhere in the legislation, requiring an act of the General Assembly before the Ohio Commissioner could vote in the affirmative.

As far as costs are concerned, and the issue of segregating medical waste for disposal, there are not any firm estimates for waste disposal costs. Some figures have ranged from $300 to $1000 per cubic foot.

Medical waste generators testified before the Senate committee that they would not be able to pay for the construction and operation of a facility on their own without the assistance of the power plants. Finally, Am. Sub. S.B. 19 has a specific provision against the use of General Revenue funds to pay for the costs of developing this facility.

Response from nonparticipants:

NALSET - Dority/Currie: NALSET cannot answer either question because all the information relating to the Fernald site is questionable and suspect at best. The environmental impact statement itself was done by a company that is ethically suspicious and plagued with managerial problems and has a track record of failure and falsification of results. To denote any radioactive waste site selection as to having quality is a misnomer at best. Wherever it is placed will do nothing less than diminish human life, the environment and our legacy. The real question should be ìAre we pursuing avenues that would provide alternative ësafe energiesí and are we actively devising methods of reducing, reusing and recycling this waste with the ultimate goal of ELIMINATION?î The scientific community has not found any way to store radioactive waste that would not pose a threat to public health, safety and environment. We should take a note from Albert Einstein, who said we should not develop nuclear power at all. It is not too late to stop!

SKW: At Fernald, the three priorities for clean-up should be (1) removal of contaminated buildings, (2) stabilization of contaminated ground, and (3) ground water/run-off controls. It should not include soil washing as a mechanism of removal of contaminated soil. The cost of soil washing is excessive and the technology is not capable of handling the volume.

The three most important qualities of a low-level waste site should include (1) utilizing a currently contaminated site (perhaps Fernald or Mounds, for example); (2) availability of trained technical personnel, and (3) operation under the commercial NRC regulations.

Andrea Tanner, DOE: A. Determine what kinds of waste there are; categorize them for proper disposition; contain/stabilize wastes which are migrating off-site to protect health and environment, both on- and off-site. B. Ship wastes off-site that need to be disposed of that Fernald cannot handle to an approved facility, such as the Nevada Test Site of Enviro-Care. Both of these facilities are certified to accept wastes to ensure proper disposal. Fernald recycles as much as possible; what is not recyclable is sent to a secured site. C. Begin the clean-up.

Lisa Crawford, FRESH, Inc.: Public acceptance - public participation in the decision making! Cleaning it up to a level that the public can live with, that presents no danger to the health and safety of the community. Cleaning up the aquifer and restoring it to its former being. Making the government remain the owner of the property indefinitely!!

Dr. Vlasta Molak, an environmentalist: Since the Fernald site is already contaminated, there is no point to build yet another site in Ohio to risk further contamination. The facility for storage of radioactive waste (low level) should be built at Fernald. Thus no new contamination will be introduced to Ohio, and the risk of transporting accidents will be eliminated.

Concluding Remarks

Mickey Croyle: The time limit is approaching. Do you have a final comment of 8 lines or less to conclude the conference?

Steve James: We appreciate the opportunity to participate in a forum such as this. It is imperative that interested persons have access to information in order to make informed decisions. We believe that Am. Sub. S.B. 19 creates a process that allows many opportunities for participation, and provides criteria for site selection that are protective of the public health and the environment. Mickey, I would like to leave our phone and fax numbers, if possible. The phone number is 614-644-2776, and the fax is 614-644-2256.

Marilyn Wall: Sierra Club has a number of concerns about the compact and S.B. 19, and they are hard to fit in this little box! If anyone wants a copy of our testimony or brochure, call me or our Columbus office, 614-641-0734 and talk to Jeff Skelding or Elena Boxer.

Debbie Davidson: First, I would like to congratulate Mickey for taking the initiative to obtain the funding for this project. Second, I commend her for all of her hard work in doing the project development work. Third, I would like to see more such conferences in the future. Perhaps Steve and Marilyn could provide lists of interested parties on both sides of this issue who would like to participate. If further conferences are conducted, we could redesign the format, perhaps with shorter questions/answers, so that the maximum number of people could participate.

Mickey Croyle: Thank you for participating in this project. Thanks also to POL staff for all of their help getting this forum together. Please remember that the conference portion will be active through November. Further discussion of nuclear waste issues of the Cincinnati can continue. Funding for your use of POL will continue through July. We need to continue discussion of this important environmental issue. An evaluation form will be mailed to you, please return it with any additional comments by May 12. We will try to get those who were unable to connect today to post their answers on the computer bulletin board; look for their answers.

Thanks again for your contribution to this project. Your time and effort helped to make this a very interesting and exciting afternoon.

References and Resources

Additional Background Information on Low Level Nuclear Waste:

Wiltshire, S.D., The Nuclear Waste Primer: A Handbook for Citizens. The League of Women Voters Education Fund. New York, NY: Lyons & Burford, Publishers. 1993.

The Nuclear Waste Digest. The League of Women Voters Education Fund. April, 1995.

Civilian Low Level Nuclear Waste documents, legislation, etc. are located at:

The Public Library of Cincinnati and Hamilton County.

800 Vine Street

Cincinnati, OH 45202

Fernald/DOE Documentations are located at:

Public Environmental Information Center

10845 Hamilton-Cleves Highway

Harrison, OH 45030

513/738-0164

Steve James

Ohio EPA

P.O. Box 1049

1600 Watermark Drive

Columbus, OH 43266-0149

FAX 614/644-2256

Gary Stegner

DOE/Fernald

U.S. Department of Energy

P.O. Box 398705

Cincinnati, OH 45235-8705

Evaluation

League of Women Voters of the Cincinnati Area

Evaluation for the Summary Publication

Please evaluate this publication, and return the completed form to:

League of Women Voters of the Cincinnati Area

103 Wm. H. Taft Road

Cincinnati, OH 45219

FAX 513/281-8714

This Project has been funded by a grant from the League of Women Voters Education Fund (LWVEF) and the Department of Energy.

1. How would you describe yourself? Please check appropriate phrase.

Public Citizen POL

Public Official Community Group

Nuclear/Defense Employee Educational Group

Media Representative Other

2. Please assess the overall value of this summary publication to you? Circle appropriate number.

1 2 3 4

Extremely Useful Useful Of some value Not useful at all

3. What would improve this publication to better achieve its goals of citizen education and participation?

4. Any additional comments or suggestions?