government – Page 2 – Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical Contamination

EPA Finalizes Fracking Report

Posted on December 13, 2016 by Laura

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its scientific report on the impacts of fracking on drinking water resources on Tuesday. The report is intended to provide states and other entities the scientific foundation to better protect drinking water resources in areas where fracking is occurring or being considered.

The report was requested by Congress and provides scientific evidence that fracking activities can impact drinking water resources. EPA identified conditions under which impacts from hydraulic fracturing activities can be more frequent or severe.

The report also identifies uncertainties and data gaps. These uncertainties and data gaps limited EPA’s ability to fully assess impacts to drinking water resources both locally and nationally. The oil and gas industry is, of course, highlighting these data gaps in it’s response to the report.

These final conclusions are based upon the EPA’s review of over 1,200 cited scientific sources; feedback from an independent peer review conducted by EPA’s Science Advisory Board; input from engaged stakeholders; and new research conducted as part of the study.

“The value of high quality science has never been more important in helping to guide decisions around our nation’s fragile water resources. EPA’s assessment provides the scientific foundation for local decision makers, industry, and communities that are looking to protect public health and drinking water resources and make more informed decisions about hydraulic fracturing activities,” said Dr. Thomas A. Burke, EPA’s Science Advisor and Deputy Assistant Administrator of EPA’s Office of Research and Development. “This assessment is the most complete compilation to date of national scientific data on the relationship of drinking water resources and hydraulic fracturing.”

EPA identified cases of impacts on drinking water at each stage in the hydraulic fracturing water cycle. Impacts cited in the report generally occurred near hydraulically fractured oil and gas production wells. Impacts included contamination that made private drinking water wells unusable.

As part of the report, EPA identified certain conditions under which impacts from hydraulic fracturing activities can be more frequent or severe, including:

Water withdrawals for hydraulic fracturing in times or areas of low water availability, particularly in areas with limited or declining groundwater resources;
Spills during the management of hydraulic fracturing fluids and chemicals or produced water that result in large volumes or high concentrations of chemicals reaching groundwater resources;
Injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids into wells with inadequate mechanical integrity, allowing gases or liquids to move to groundwater resources;
Injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids directly into groundwater resources;
Discharge of inadequately treated hydraulic fracturing wastewater to surface water resources; and
Disposal or storage of hydraulic fracturing wastewater in unlined pits, resulting in contamination of groundwater resources.

For a copy of the study, visit www.epa.gov/hfstudy.

Monroe, Michigan left unprotected by lack of emergency planning

Posted on October 5, 2016 by Laura

Site of a near catastrophic meltdown in 1966, the Fermi plant has a notorious history. New findings indicate emergency and evacuation planning for the surrounding community are dangerously inadequate.

MONROE, MI — Emergency and evacuation planning related to radiological incidents at the Enrico Fermi Nuclear Generating Station (Fermi Plant) located in Frenchtown Charter Township, Michigan are dangerously inadequate, according to an investigation by Disaster Accountability Project (DAP). The Fermi Plant is less than 50 miles from both Detroit, Michigan and Toledo, Ohio.

Federal regulations require “emergency planning zones” or EPZs within 10 miles of U.S. nuclear power plants. Jurisdictions located in EPZs must develop evacuation protocols for responding to radiological incidents and provide residents living within these zones annual information on protective actions for radiological emergencies.

Outside the 10-mile zones, local governments are not required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) or Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to plan for radiological emergency evacuations, or to educate the general public on what to do in the event of a radiological emergency.

The 10-mile guidelines remain unchanged after the March 2011 Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant disaster, where Japan evacuated residents within a 19-mile radius and the NRC recommended a 50-mile evacuation zone for American citizens.

In the event of an emergency, many residents living beyond the 10-mile “emergency planning zone” of the Fermi Plant are likely to voluntarily evacuate. According to a 2013 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, without planning and regular public information, such voluntary “shadow evacuations” can complicate the evacuation of people most immediately in danger, for instance, by putting additional traffic on roadways. In response, the NRC claimed that additional planning is unnecessary, emphasizing that “[s]tate and local authorities have a robust capacity to effectively evacuate the public in response to life-threatening emergencies.”

In August 2015, DAP contacted 22 jurisdictions within a 50-mile radius of the Fermi Plant, seeking documents and information related to radiological preparedness, including evacuation planning. Only 19 of these jurisdictions provided any kind of a response. The 22 jurisdictions DAP contacted are: in Michigan, Monroe County, Lenawee County, Washtenaw County, City of Detroit, Wayne County, City of Dearborn, City of Livonia, City of Ann Arbor, Oakland County, Macomb County, Warren County, Livingston County, and Sterling Heights; in Ohio, Lucas County, City of Toledo, Ottawa County, Wood County, Sandusky County, Fulton County, Erie County, Henry County, and Seneca County.

Key findings include:

The only jurisdiction within 10 miles of the Fermi Plant and 1 out of 21 jurisdictions between 10-50 miles of the Fermi Plant reported providing educational materials or plans to residents regarding how to respond to a radiological incident at that plant.

8 out of 22 (36%) of the jurisdictions provided all-hazard emergency plans and/or evacuation plans.

Only 1 out of 22 (5%) of the jurisdictions provided emergency plans specific to radiological incidents at the Fermi Plant.

No jurisdiction furnished a shadow evacuation plan or study.

DAP agrees with the GAO report’s conclusion that further study is required to understand the level of public knowledge and the likely public reaction to a nuclear plant emergency, beyond the current 10-mile emergency planning zone.

Since the NRC recommended a 50-mile evacuation zone around the Fukushima Dai-ichi disaster, a radiation spill at the Fermi Plant would likely result in a “shadow evacuation” of citizens beyond a 10-mile radius, for which citizens and disaster response teams are unprepared.

“Most communities situated ten or more miles from nuclear power plants do not plan for radiological emergencies simply because Washington doesn’t require it,” said Ben Smilowitz, Executive Director, Disaster Accountability Project. “Most people who live 20, 30, or 40 miles away from plants do not realize that their communities are only adhering to bare-minimum standards for radiological emergency preparedness.”

“This report’s findings should serve as a wake-up call to local communities that if Washington is not going to demand emergency planning, residents should demand it themselves. We hope residents of these communities will call on their local governments to do more, regardless of any mandate from Washington,” Smilowitz said.

“We should learn the lessons of past disasters and not repeat them. In the five years since Fukushima, we had an opportunity to prepare communities for the unexpected. Over 100 million Americans are at greater risk because of a failure to plan.”

After an earthquake and tsunami severely damaged the Japanese Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in 2011, over 150,000 Japanese citizens were evacuated within 19 miles of the stricken plant due to the presence of radiological plumes. The NRC recommended that U.S. citizens evacuate from as far as 50 miles of the plant. This distance exceeds the current mandatory planning zone of 10-miles, and the NRC has not satisfactorily reconciled this disparity between current planning and real-world guidance.

DAP’s series of reports on U.S. radiological evacuation planning can be found at http://disasteraccountability.org/news-media/reports/.

The nonprofit Disaster Accountability Project saves lives and reduces suffering after disasters by maximizing the impact of preparedness, response and relief through citizen oversight and engagement, policy research and advocacy, and public education. Connect with Disaster Accountability Project at http://www.disasteraccountability.org.

Coalition sues to stop Liquid Nuclear Waste Shipments

Posted on August 15, 2016 by Laura

An international coalition including Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical Contamination has filed suit against the United States Department of Energy in an effort to stop dangerous and unprecedented shipments of liquid nuclear waste.

The coalition lawsuit charges that the Department of Energy (DOE) and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) failed to provide a thorough public process as required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to fully analyze the hazards of transporting liquid highly radioactive waste. An Environmental Impact Statement must be prepared and made available for other federal agencies and citizens to review and comment on, including a discussion of alternative ways to deal with the nuclear waste.

Experts drawn from organizations within the international coalition will testify that the shipments are unwarranted, ill advised and entirely unnecessary. Allowing highly radioactive liquid wastes from Canada to be shipped through communities and over major waterways in Canada and the United States, to be dumped in South Carolina, without the deliberative NEPA procedures, will set a dangerous precedent for decades to come. It will also intensify the pressures on the State of South Carolina to become an international nuclear sacrifice area.

U.S. Rep. Brian Higgins (NY – 26) has stated that the proposed shipments raise significant homeland security questions. The US House of Representatives unanimously passed Higgins sponsored legislation requiring a NEPA Environmental Impact Statement for the proposal.

Wes Raymond, CACC administrator says: “We cannot allow precedent to be set that would permit shipments of this material. CACC has examined all potential routes from Chalk River to Savannah River Site and the way in which liquid waste would interact with the environment in a release event; An accident anywhere along any potential route could irradiate the drinking water of millions of people. We are familiar with the physical properties of liquids, and we deny the claim that liquid nuclear waste can be contained in a release event.”

Lynda Schneekloth, a Buffalo, NY Sierra Club member says: “It is irresponsible to ship liquid highly radioactive waste through our communities and over our waterways without truly studying the dangers and alternatives. Governments are responsible for the health and wellbeing of the citizens who elected them.”

The liquid high-level nuclear waste in question is a corrosive acidic mixture of dozens of highly dangerous radioactive materials including cesium-137, strontium-90, iodine-129, plutonium-239, and weapons-grade uranium-235, left over from the production of medical isotopes at Chalk River, Ontario, north-west of Ottawa.

Although it was previously determined that this highly dangerous liquid waste would be solidified and stored onsite in Canada, the US Department of Energy now plans to truck the 6,000 gallons of extremely radioactive waste, in liquid form, to the Savannah River Site in South Carolina, in exchange for $60 million from Canada.

“Liquid high-level nuclear waste is known to be among the most dangerous materials on the planet, as we have seen at the Savannah River Nuclear Weapons Site and the nuclear power and weapons reprocessing site at West Valley, NY. There is a good reason why no one has ever tried to move this stuff over public roads before. The material from Chalk River is in the same category,” said Diane D’Arrigo of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service.

“Our organization has fought against the needless and heedless transport of solid irradiated uranium fuel over public roads, rails, and waters,” said Kevin Kamps, nuclear waste specialist at Beyond Nuclear. “The only thing worse than solid irradiated uranium is the liquid variety. It is a Mobile Chernobyl; it cannot be contained when spilled due to crash, fire, or deliberate attack.”

“Shipping highly radioactive liquid waste to South Carolina is wildly inappropriate,” said Dr. Gordon Edwards, president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility. “Chalk River has been solidifying exactly the same kind of liquid waste for over ten years already. In 2011 Chalk River promised to handle all this material on site.” He added, “It was recently learned that Indonesia is going to be down-blending its high-level liquid waste on site, rather than sending it to the Savannah River Site, and Canada can do the same thing, making the high-risk transport of this material over public roads completely unnecessary.”

The lawsuit is being filed against the Department of Energy and National Nuclear Security Administration on behalf of a number of organizations whose individual members live along the potential transport routes who could suffer significantly in the event of a safety or security mishap allowing the escape of some of the highly dangerous liquid contents. The suit will also highlight specific problems at the SRS site that argue against the dumping of more nuclear waste there.

The coalition includes Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical Contamination, Lone Tree Council, Beyond Nuclear, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, Environmentalists, Inc., Nuclear Information Resource Service, Savannah River Site Watch, and Sierra Club.