ML19220A397
| ML19220A397 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom, Crane  |
| Issue date: | 07/27/1978 |
| From: | Kepford C CITIZENS FOR SAFE ENVIRONMENT |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19220A398 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7904170551 | |
| Download: ML19220A397 (16) | |
Text
.
i
- ;..,. l n (,. -
NUCLEAR REU" A"CR! CCPMISSICN s \\ P' I my q.
/g
'\\
hi p[, &gy ATCC SAFET! AND LICOS":0 APPEAL ECARDS l-i Alan S. Ros e nthal, Ch --.an
(~'hree Mile Island)
[,I NA j
Michaal C. Far ar, Ch *i-"
(Peach Botten)
$3 h g,9'~
J/
l c'"0. Tv
/ s/
Dr. Jchn H. Buck (Peach Botten)
Dr. W. Reed Johnson (Botn proceedings) y[p
' l'['
l Jero=o E. Sharfnan (S'.ree Mi.le Isl.2nd) hf id'
%h t
I
)
~
In the Matters of
)
)
M.CPCLITali EDISCN CCFPA':!, E E.
)
)
(Utree Mile Island Ncelear Station,
)
Docket No. 50-320 Unit 2)
)
~
)
FH"rrv ogIA 3;;;;;4.!C CCFPANI, e_t,, al. )
t
)
(Peach Bottes Atanic Power Statdon,
)
Docket Nos. 50-277 Units 2 and 3)
)
50-278
\\
f A v"v"C. *A %h"=6.4'
- t
- n*T
'.? ?.,0'"1' r*
- O T' v.. w w F J- * * '. * *
" C.'s "A'O..act dA m
L.4 v
w
~~...'.'>=*1~~"*''.a=.'.'
=. a= ~'1. 3.
C=.
~..r.:
c In alt 3-h80, dated May 30, 1978, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (Appeal Board) ordered that the record be reopened in a ntnber of reactor licensing cases to receive the discussion of raden-222 in the Perkins (Docket $0-h38,-LS9, and -h90) proceeding. The Interveners in the 2C-2 pro-coeding renew thel.r objection to this action of dagally shi.fting the bur-den of proof frem the Sta.ff and Applicant to the Intervenors.l Fartherr. ors,
the Intarveners reiterate their objection to the untinely and inappropriata inclusien of the Perkins record on raion-222 into the already closed OC-2 record on the a s=e subject.
1/ See Inte.vene s8 An'e ' *'--n an Anreal Boa-d Order on the Grounds of Fraud ~.nd :n otner 'reunas, Jana L2, Lna, thLa procese nC.
\\ dere:C *Ar referred to as the F= na Anneal.)
g-
-l 9 o W761
? ~
.~ '"
D I i
There is a more troubling aspect to this whole charade, however.
i i
The Staff has aevertised the five-affidavit testir.onies used in the Perkins proceeding (affidavits of Lcuenberg, F.othfle:.sh, '.-lilde, Gotchy, end F.agno) as addressing EPA issues.
Iet, the Perkins transcript unequivocably men-onstrates that these sa=a a.ffide. vita do, not aridress ! EPA issues.
(tr 2L66-2507). Since the radon ts:ue e.ust be addresued according to EPA with a dissussics of =ill tailin s disposal alternatives, anong other things, tho question 1:cediately arises: what is the punose of the excroisa nmdated by ALi3-h307 To these InterTenors, the =swer is unnistakably clear, obvious, and alt 3-hSO illegal 2y shif ts the " burden of proof" (100~.12.732(a))
o=inous.
of establishing that the Staff radon asces:nent is corrcet and adequate from the Staff to tha Intervenors who rust new demonstrate that the Staff assess-rent is incorrect and inadequate. This is accenplichsd by the requirenent that intervenors (alog with other pa-ties) :rnst nc.i show hcw the Pertins proceeding is inadequa*a (See ref.1, pages 36-53, for a fuller discussien of this subject).
~he end result is that intervenors are bled of their most precious and scarce recources, tir.e and money, in a futile and pointless Of eeurse, they have little choice, since if they 02nnot centest these g r.ne.
illegal actions, the Staff actions are autc=stically rubber-s*2. ped. (See M ho$). NF.2A gets ignored, thwarted, and subverted, and another ilic;al Federal action is authorized.
The Interrenors in the Peach Botte= (P3 2 ana J) proceeding have no objection to the inclusion of the Perkins transcript into the Peach Bot *w:a proceeding, pra dsd that all the deficice.cies in the Perkins record are remedied as described ana recer=. ended belcw.
y Sce, for instance, EC Staff l'otice *o Recran the ?.ecord en T:.2A Issues ($-3). Lcng Islanc ~.;n:,;.n ' Co., acci;e t pu-pia,;,, ca,c : Apr:.1 20,'75.
44 184 The itens of AL13-h00, page 10, paragraph nuncered 3 are treated below in order.
A.
Infor=ation wnich should be inclueed in the Perkins eviaentiary record:3 (1) All exhibits offered by tne Perkins Interve. ors' Jitness Kepford should be included in the O'I-2 and PS2 & 3 records.
In particular, Exnibits A, D, E, F, and G, 'should be incluece in these records. The Cor::nission's rules offer no support for the Perkins Licensin;; 3oard 's oreer to not include them in that record. (10CFR2.7h3(a) ).
Indeed, this rale allows the use of either oral og documenta:/ evidence, as *21s " evidence" was introcueed as "exnibits" by '.litness t:epford. (See 10CF22.7h3(f) }.
In Perkins, the Licensing Board's action w-s actually taken to clear the record of inforration damaging to the Sea.M's preconceived conclusiens. In sedition, even if the rejected exhibits curing the,Iune d, 1978 deposition of Dr. ::epford could lega.127 have been excluded frca the reecrd, they should have been printed and circulated in the record as required by 10CE.2.7h3(e).
(2) The sectiens of Witness Kepford's testir.cny wnich were censcred by the Perkins Licensing Doa-d should be red = red. The Licen-sing Board's reasoning is faulty and was applied selectively to only the Perkins Interrenors' Witness. For illustration, tr. 26hl-2661, Applicant Witness n =ilton, over objection of c
Interrenors' counsel, ana with warnings from the Board, responded with long, argumentative answers to questions, ana quoted "f.mm j The information identirled in subsection (a) (1) of the text below was exclueed frem the Perrins record en na rew and/or non-existent pro-eedural g cunds. Regraless of the nerits of the exclucien of *2is material by tne ?orxins Licensin Boare, ' ' '
- i 4
- 'cr ution rsst be incluaed in the "".I-2 ana P52 & 3 records aue to its cirect relemes to *2e rason-222 health effects is:ue.
/1/i dG5
.i Le
- 3. X
e 6
-h-a document which was not properly a part of the redirect exa;s-ination which was then being concueted." (Licensing Board Orser, I
June 30, 1978, p: p 6.) Tet his statemcats, favorable to the desired decision, were not censored.
In addition, since ;ounsel for the Parkins Interrenors never teminated his direct examination, the asst =ption by the Licensin; Kepford's statements were made during redirect is Board +2at The Kopford deposition was not neatly divided in+4 erroneots.
an initial period of " direct," followed by a separate period of
" cross-enanination," and concluding.rith yet another identifiable interval of " redirect."
- he text of the transcript of the June 8, 1978, deposition shows only that counsel Ear the Applicant con-tirned, from the very beginning to the very end of +2e deposition, his pattom of interrupting the (dire et) axaminatien of D-. Kepford.
direct ex: ination was never ter=inated by counsel for As a result, the InterTenors, cr.d the stater.ents the Licensing Board arbitrarily censored (based upon a theory that these statemnts could only have been made earlier in the cepositien) were, in fact, preperly maio, and therefore sheuld have been made part of the final Perkins record.
It is clearly inanpropriate to penali:o Intervenors in all proceed-ings proposed to be affected by the Perkins record because of 'de a-Munctionings of attorneys in Perkins.
Even if one assumed (for the sake of argunent) that the censored pages of Kopford's testinony were given during redirect (while, in fact, f hey were a legitimata part of his direct testi=eny as e:-
plained above), these pages still should not have been eensored becansa they establisa the conto tual basis for understanding +2e 44 #bb
-g_
answers which Dr. Kepford gave to questiens posed by a4versaries du&c the so-called " cross-enminatien" pertions of tho deposition.
In additien, portions of the Kepford ec=.ents which the Perkins Lie 9nsing Board has 1 preperly censcred are further elaborations on the state =ents nace by Staff Counsel Joseph Scinto. The Pert: ins Licensing Board e:::plicitly and unequivocclly pr-~i neu Dr. Kepford the opportunity to inelade these ec== ento in his deposition (tr-2633).
This pre =ise was =ade prior to the Kepford deposition, and Kepford, assuning the Board's premise was =ade in goed f aith, relied upon it by pestponin; his discussica of :n inpcrtant issue until the deposition. During the deposition, Kepford's ce==ents in -ebut-tal to Scinto's stata=ents were so identified (tr-2797).
(3) Interrenors in the ?.'~-2 and PS 2 & 3 preceedings nove that the T C-2 Inte: Tenors' filires entitled "Cri:f in Scppert of I:ceptions to the Initial Decision Dated December 19,1977," of January 30, 1973, and "Intervenors' !.npeal fr== an Appeal 3 card Crder en the Grounds of Fraud and on Other Grecais," dated June 12, 1973, be included in the evidentiary recerd in the reopened 32-2 and ?3 2 & 3 pro-ceedings. These two docu=ents detail the centemptuous attitada of the Staff toward the Staff's s tatutcry obligatiens on the raden issue. They also document the fraud ulent and Q cal campaign of the Staff to cenecal the magnitude anc duratica of the raden problem. They also ill"-Mate hew, in the more than ene full year since the prob 1c:a was exposed, the Staff has. ado no progress whatsoever in its ability to satisfy the !.-.21 requi-c=ents per-taining to the raden probics.
/j O<
If.57
~
A.
(h) Interrenors in the E!I-2 and PB 2 & 3 procedings al:o propose
~~
for inclusion in the Perkins record as an exhibit a copy of the appended article from the Washing - Post, dated July 16, 1970.
This article adds another perspective on the past and continuing efforts of the AECA RO to ignore, bclittl.3, and obfascate the raden problen frem abandoned uraniun ~"7 tailings piles and open pit nines.
The need for further hearings en the raden issue:
B.
(1) The artificial cli= ate of rush invented by the Applicant in the Perkins proceeding, once the radon insue arose, produced an unusually warped and incomplete record.
The Staff and Applicant had =enths to prepare their testirenies and to gather a to+d of The Perkins eleven witnesses for the raden issue procee. ding.
Intervenors were caught in this artificid clL-: ate of rush which the l'erkins Licensing Board legitimited, and which hopelessly ec:,prc=ised the rights of the Intervenors under 10CPP.2.7h3(a). Os t
-a crunch was so tight i
that the sale witness the Interrenors were able to secure, Dr. Kepford, did not even have tine to have his hastily pm-pared, hand-written testi:.cny typed. Considering the existence of the 22-2 proceeding and the additienal attention which the Jordan nemrandum had already brought to the raden issue, it was a gross abuse of discretien for the Perkins Board to allow Kepford less than one week of preparation (tr. 263h-6, 2732-3).
As a result, the Inter-enors in the "'"I-2 and P3 2 & 3 pro-ceedings are new saddled with the grossly i= balanced and one-sided Perkins transcript, thmuch no fault of their e.m.
^
erc
- $ %.. hk)
The insidicus chracter of A1A3-h O cecenes obvious once enc realizes that, rather than providing the opportunity ed the necessary ti.e to allow Intervenors to prepare their cun cases in the radon issue, A113-h80 shut: the b rden of proof away fron Appli:rt and Staff onto Inte vencrs by requiring the la;ter to accept, scrutinize, critici:c, and suc; est ways to renedy the many deficiencies in seneene el:e's disterted evidentiary reccrd.
To add insult to injury, the OC-2 and PD 2 '.: 3 Interveners nust also accept, scrutinize, and criticize under severe time cen-straints the Petial Initial Decision in *2e Perkins case.b As a rescit of the inadequacies of the Perkins record and the discrininatory attitude of the Perkir.3 Licensin; 3ord, the DC-2 and F3 2 & 3 Interveners feel that the Fe-kdr.s record needs to be supplenented by testimony in the following reas:
(a) The effects of low-level, Icw doce rate radiation.
His subject received a very one-sided treatnent in the ?crkins proceeding. Witnecces for the Applicant
, Hr.ilton and Leuis) =ade numerous statc ents in
(
attempts to create the impression that low-level radia-tion is harnless (for exenple tr 2270-1, 14wis prepared testinony). Rescreh which has shown that low-level radiation is nore damaging (per rad or ren) than the linear hypothesis would predict (notice: lines-h'mothesis )
h/ he oa*i s Fr tial
+4 Decision, dated Julf 1h, 1973, has not, as 2 the date of preparin-this '.csponse (July 26, 1973) bo r. se'-ved tren the Intervencrs in the CC-2 =d F3 2 & 3 pre uctin; s.
Thece Intervenors are aware of its enistence throu;;h notification by coun:cl for the ?crkins Inte rvenors.
44 M.50
l' S
I s b cn and is act 7817 b ing suppre::s d by the j
B. (1) (a)
I governnent. Scac of tnis research in. formation was I
inte ionally censored by the Licensing Board in tho l
I Perkir proceeding as described aboro. As a result, I
a dist)rtcd picture of the current sta*a of knculadgo j
i was created by Applicant's and Stc.ff's numerous vit--
j i
nesses whose objectivity is highly questionable een-i l
sidering that they owe either their jobs or careers, or both, to the advancement of nuclear power. Rebut +21 testimony is necessary for the creation of a bc. lanced and factual re cord.
(b) The Interrenors in the Perkins proceeding were denied discovery en tha radon issue and thus were denied access to the basic infomition used by the Staff. Should further hearia;s be held in T:C-2 and P3 2 & 3 proceed-ings, it would be only fair for the Intervencrs +A have an opportunity for discovery. A preli:-ina:-r list of docunents is being prepared for this eventuality.
(c) There should be caple tine for witne ses to prepare testinony. The one we d allowed'r**i+. ness Eepferd for the preparation of the Perkins deposi icn was totally incIcusable. Under the arbitra.ry and capricious dead-1.ines 1 posed by the Perkins '.deensin;; Soard, fepfo:-d was forced to face pressures and constraints which none of the o+}.er witnecces f aced. Kepferd, and any other witnesses for the Interveners in DC-2 and P3 2& 3 preceedings, chould be offered the oppcrtunity to prepare testimony as he or they see fit, and not be placed under 44 190
~9-t I
3.
(1) (c) the clearly artificial time con:traints ecncred by tho Appliennt in Perkins, ccnstraints which in thei-essones denied due process to the Intervencrs.
i (d) The Interveners proposo to put forth witnesses to discuss the long-tern per:pectives r.d prospects for the survivability of past and present tecnnologice.1 societics and of hunan repulatiens on earth. It is expected that these witnesces would discuss the failures of past societies and the rise of new ones in the w;ka cf cle, in the centext of the availability of n: tral and h=an rescurces then, neu, and in the futre, as these facters pert.1in to the is:ce in question.
C.
Cbjecdons to the Perkins record:
(1) A ntnber of objections to the Perkins roccrd have airce.dy been alluded to:
the dispa-ity in the r.cr.t of prepr *ien tine available to the Staff and Applicant witnesses and that avail-able to the Perkin: Intcrvenors' only wi'necs; tre censrship from the Perkins record of legiti-ste ec=.ents and exhibits offered by Witness Kepferd; the denial of discovery to 'he Perkins Intenenors end the arti:icial climate of c-;ency created by the Perkins Appli:r.t to foreclose the prepra-ties of an adequate rebuttal te the cr.se unich the Staff and Applicent had to -repare. It hould scffice to say that the Perkins Interveners were the only party to that preceedin;;
which was denied the opportunity to ventilate fally the raden issue as they perceived it.
"'hcir efferts were thwrted by the self-servt:0 a*nosphere crea'ad by the Perkins Acplicant.
44 131
- ~
mm (2) is doceented in the 7.:I-2 Inter tenors' Frrud Appeal (see ref.1, abeve), the Staff has illegally conce: led and ignored the raden problem for years. It appears t.at the Staff is continuin; this objectionablo end illegal activity in the rea of low-level radiation. The Staff, in its testi-r.ony on radiation effects, has attempted to create the inpres-sien that the Staff uses the " upper bounc estinates of the EZIR Report, his attempt to nialcad was pointed out by
'riitness Kepferd (tr 2796-7 and I.x.hibit 3, frem vnich one pace, nz.=bered 9-26, was lef t out in Staff's reproduction for the distribution copies of :.he Perkin: transcript).
It should be noted that the IRC staff created a eennittee to review wne.t liitness Kcpford sought to introduce in Perkins as Fahihit 3, the document known as the Mancuso Report.
The Staff cc=ittee, in an undated r.anorandum, appears to have fcund tnat the ?!ancuso naport does indeed provide i.mportent evidence that radiation effects are more pronounced than had been thought previously.
"'he referenes used in the !.20 Staff report identify the sourecs of the previous thi. king as ICRP Report 26, the "~t Report, and tne U "SCD.F. Reports of 1972 and 1977
"'hece doc =ents, which have been rendered obsoleta on the subject of lew-level radiati:n by the P.ancuso report and other recent findin;s, are (not surprisingly) just the reports the Staff and Acplicant Witnesses relied upon heavily to cover-up the inercased effectiveness of low-level radiation in causing cancer.
It is very disturbing that the Aff:
4q
..J m.
Stcff - tnces nado no nention of this rt._ent Stc.ff ec=J.ttee re sort. The Staff :hould be prepred to dis ::s this subject when and if hearin;: 2.rc reopened.
D.
Re=edies to thi unfert= te and rc, ret +iole situation:
(1) C"e of the sir.plect rencdies would be to Frant tne Intcrveners a=ple tir.e - indeed, corporable tine to th:t nede av :.licle to all other part:.es -- to prepare their rebuttal case.
- his '. cule involve scfficier.t t:f.e to secure acditi nal vitnesses and a ple tire to prepre tastinonics. It chould t e renenbered that the proce:s of cecur:.r.g witnecces is con-sicerably nore difficult and tir.e-eens=in; for the Interenors since they cannot a.f ford to pay the fees charged by prefcesicn:.1 witnesses svcil.ble to de affluent parties. Tne T'2-2 ed P3 2 't 3 Intervenors believe that five. n:hs thculd ba s2t-fictent tine to search out witnesses and prepa. 2 testi_ onics.
Su ': a five-nonth period i: e senti:1 a prepare presentati:n of a b,' " ecd and nore informed cers cetive en the raden issue.
i (2) Discove.-y by the ~..I-2 and P3 2 e 3 Intencncrs sh uld be alloved on the Staff. This disco.t:~s nu:t include the cppor-tunity for written interro;at:rie: by t.e Inta nenors.
For exc.. le, a n=ber of doe =ents wnich have been referenet:d in thi Staff testinonics are not available to the Inteneno s, hat contain ir.pertant info:--atien concerning :carco ter.s.
(3) Restcration of the censered er.ibits, deleted iron the ?cr'.< ins reecre. contrary to the provisions of 10 03. 2.7h3(c),
is 1.=p er.tive. There was ao ration:u. ressen given, consistent with the Co==issien's r.ies of prc:tice, for One exclusion f 4LM
- O' 4
.m Exhibits A, D, E, 7, and G.
The result and purpose of this deletion were si ply to clear the record of materials det-i. ental to tho.utual cause of the Staff and Applicant.
If the Liconsing Scard had quesuons concernin; t':ese matarials, the Board should havo rtconvened and asked its questiora of Kopford. 31:tilarly, all the deleted remarks Irc= the. sepford depositien should be restored sinco, as was =cationed earlier, these were part of the Interrenors' direct presentation.
?urraant to A113-b80, the Interrenors in the "MI-2 and P3 2 & 3 proceedings chocse to defer the filing of the memorar.dum connenting en the Ped. ins decision 2ntil notified that the catcc=e of (a) the Cc= ission review of ALA3 - d30 is complete, new believed to be Ju'y 27, 1978, (b) the octcc=e of this request is deter =ined, or (c) the deficient Perkins record is rc=edied, if such is allowed.
Respectfully subntitted, f,,.'
,f
- < c.n o Chauncey Keeford Representative of the Intcrvenors b33 Criando Avcnce State College, PA 16601 1-61h-237-39CO dated July 27,1978 46
- O
_ m, /,l s
' M7
%>I mg.ccTm wi
~
.. (f^ ~'s
.w. w w s y
y~s) ~s
,.. p x
y
-e N - N, a.-) W.
t m,c l4,t!
(,,*/ )G..n!
n is rs r, v.
r i.
i Y
J m).h) t
\\
~
%hn! &r U
,,f,/ J taf Ns w
M JUL31E73>k'
[
Y, l l Y Y ' G cm v ';;.:
,2 '
5
<l l
0 7 MxW u w J J % > n.k
,,,d Ll,_./Q M.n a.s a? mf*!
~
vv' d
y
+\\ f "%
' Yletims Liveil.W:tr Uraniuni Tallind Pile QDyy' :
j a
i
.e
- s. -...
By Bill Curry Today, the mill is ;:ene. closed in nelr pwnee, and those of some 19% Cone too are the dau when it 20 0ther former nuclear facditus. has m e-m e t s s r m rw e
MON iCELLO. s.tah-It take* cnty wnt reamim of h M dan.;crous ra.
put uncoucted thousands of unwitt:ng a m:nute to drna past :ne houses hera dium in Suuth Cred to more than mple natonnme on a a atorme fatot where the fcur !euremta s iet.m s
.w o times the acvept ble lesels and Un". not knowing w hen or wnetner
~
, liset the; re ait just a few tiocxs
.;3mrna radiat ion les cis alon: the tracedy may rom the;r In es. Some 5.-
, from eacn cther.
ed;es of the mdl site up to 20 times M people in Muta Seit Lake City hou of the surrounding area.
stone its e w' thin what is reners!!y g du,Laa Man unares.12. s as the first to con.sidered tre can:er rane of a ura-
. Gal br5er. 11. the last. In be But such fact:ihes as this are not a nium proca**icit sue-a half m:!c.
I tw ee n were Ih na H eaton.
and matter of bscone concern. for the
, Alan. tau: nan. a, ethe captain of the g.s radioactn e u ntes called nen.100 acr*s contalmne mEens
,hich school baskemail team.
..g ho m bi.
cf tons of uramum t.uhnis sand as a Thes2.
.n ed aishin a half nile of zarre fa h.on ehcw here in the Umted monument to the now4efunct Vitro Chemical Cofs uranium processing fa.
i the old n".! u he-- the Atomic Energy 9tates. In Salt L.he City w here an abandoned mill still -pred raoration cd.ty. De WotDoor Co. net to tne I
rs iu fr-iear en 5
site recent!y.as even atan Oned it.a_
.wm the f anWacc. a Mhouse bu It m:!! put emu;i um m the a r iocal e reud.*nts say :o bty 'te w a n han;.
on ful matter of ur.irni.m u a. set is w three structure manufacturin;.ac;.,t7 to e= care f ue hes.tn th est from t.no
" hot ** lt u nuld be declare < nardoug mco;t ta dr? emu _ h o cor uce t he moands of uramum waste pded up and efoscef if it a cre a uran a mme.
chrer,e on aumme::es and enouth to "h[
htcra!!y dmch e the streens in house in Grand Junction. Colo, more than e
per W O win d ow s.
fl0 buildm:s buut un suc h fill hase r
a ene fn e
t I
kee h
n at a
- t e bce M.CLEAft. A 3. Col I tentiaMy fatal effects of ex;csure to threit of nuc! car cean BW uc in amah amounu of radauon cocsWered idents here 'a) that s hen the threat f NUCLER From Al terame an actusht it occuit ed here acceptable years aro.
in Montice. o. a rere in the INsa baameMs and hou*e slabs to remnve Pr namnie, the P S. Derar~-eat mistrriuus mcidence of :eukem:2 tonk r:cioactivitv. In Canoneur e. Pa. 1~)
cf Health. Education and Welf a-a was industrial w rwers base been encse<1 recentb directed to oversee a bicad four youn,: la cs m a town of we u
and lef t a f armar rr* Ment now lu t : to nne f arm of radvartiv:tv from tne study of c v:1!an and mi:itary person, fn Salt Lake Ci:y batin:: for his Me wastes 2nder their buildm::s.
nel ins oh ed in the nition's atom:e homb te ta sfter a star'!!n:!? ht:n aramst the disease Statnticady, there..
So the offorance and desd craas on rumber of :aldic s at a DH test de-should hase been only one case in 25 the old uramum null site here in Mon, u!ored icukem:a.
years.
tJecllo is only a marker similar to If EW is also erecte ' to under' aire "He was enesed to radiatbn some-those el*?where in the country, in all.
m a mator McPmn # 2 W co=-
alon: the hne.'
the U.S. government has :dentthed O't l where or some Aaysa3s Alan Maudan's (saer. Dale, as locations w hicn. de Mont2eeito, saw pkted stuav of thyrn(d acnormai'ies 8*
5 C
{ he crut<** tne ou et stre ;ts at tne foot the ;;rmdin;, cru.shm2 and enractm; m med M Mnam 6M m of the San Juan Mour.tains in south-o" urantura for national defense and me s M W2. W o.Cd cern ! tah and points to the houses Mmals today as touc re;csttortes of 6 ca study concluded tacre was no incre.se
. of the sictims.
rmitoacuve !eftovers of the atcrue in.he abnormahttes. whien can lead
"![ l hadn't moved here to Monti-ase.
to cancer, but o!fiu.ds now fear that fI cella, my boy would sti!! be alisef' he enouch tirne had perhaps not passed sai.s of his mose f rom Lo an Utan. "I for all abnormahtles t become appats firmly beuere that.
ent.
.' Instead. Man cied of leukemia oc,
The Washin:*on Pest recently r*-
,ggg torted that resicents in southse"c-n w
Utah and no rt h west A r::on a blame the nuc! car tests for a continu:r.; ined dence of leukem's and cancer among lonctime re.acnts.
And 3 csterdav. health officials in Salt Lake C::y becan eramming ' re-men lor: esro*ed to raoiation frorn five feet of fiil amuled la :) > cars ago irrrn htro.
The firchou'*. where about 60 reo-ple w ntk. Is the one that is so -htt
- sith radiauon that if it were a ura.
nium mme federal mine safety ord.
.cals would close at as ha.aarda1.4.
^
M,
, maw m
r i
Junctlen have uranium tailines d%s-County was subjected 'tercatedly fo s riat em:ntir: she strnis.od side-nur f aMout f rm atomic testing 'n d
A a lk s. G. A. ii.!ud) Fran!. a u nio*
Ne in the N.s.
ran and Pararonsh. wit h 3 1
Cres ta
\\ abo gNb
'tesith pnvs' cat wuh tr.e state besith g
e
' g,4 de r s rt men t incre, savs
.w m e 6'a enm mned pe nulaticit of IM. etrert-
- \\ b
%:ldings hue ocan reenm nerried for enced four ca**g of leukemia from I
10 4 to tm two to thre times <ne 4 *Sc LAs Cfy }
*"" "t'"**"'*'"'^"'"*
t removai cf the racioactive wasten.
'""'"*"'"*d'""o*"
ca** cf Mnnunho. hn nn;s in tnosc Q O" were receiure as much radiation be-t-so t o w n s w ere inconclusn e.
yond normal as they would if they so tway the duuois and fears ex.
IGrend
,,,, t, ct to or three eccessary Fre"edbr -"""5 i re "o m eeus U-T A
H W"'
whoie 6nd7 x ravs a s e r.
victims remain eser what impact the Some 512 milhon is expected to be pm'mn of wamum W nuciesr i
spent for the removal of the radioac-arms has had on this tav n. "For a j
tive tailines in the Grand Junction place this small," said Drie}Iau.4aan, j
IC"?DMb MonticeIIo area. three fourths of the money pro-
# t0
'"U UA*
vidri by the federal.;osernment and d
Perow ort 0
100 the rest by the state.
Rep. Dan Marriott (RI.'tahl. etting gig past federal"ne:Icet* in mana:cment ARIZCNA
{N.M.
of uranium milis and *nte wasal, i
i savs a " serious hesita hazard
- now ev newuu.corw ists in Salt Lane City nesr the V.tro wastes and elsew 9 era in the ecuntr-r.
Three town in snuthern Utah that rnt can h etN a
were studied la IM6 for unexplaloed os.erall rac An to the enhre body lacreases in lerhen.ia. Findlats were or f rurn raden gas that deposits radio-Enconclusive.
active particles in the lungs and can cau<e cancer there.
Here in Monticello. the old uraniu:n Some areas of the firehouse, generally operation was o w ned by the A EC.
i the !! vin' a.nd s;eepin! quar ers, re.
f rom,1" 3 to A
ord fira trres t"e a. aunt of al ow.
which processed ore 19 tic. The ore was trucked in from able radiacon th.at urantum :raners a.re mines araund the area and stacked in I pe nitted to be exposed to.
m unds in an open Leid. A. Iter proc-ud la.st weet Catersde tate hesith essing, the r dinactive leftovers were efkals w e-e in Grand Junet;o n.
returned to the fie:d. and the winas, C5 in an effort to determin e w hethier leukemia-ocaur-.02 at twice predominanntly frota the south, cars tied to the north-*here all of the the erpacted rate and concentrated in g
the elderty-is at ad re!ated to the old uranium process;ng operat;
!n the south sector of town r*:ht on there or to tne extensne use of its ra-dicactive ramnants as fill natter in g
g g,
construction prejects in.nesa County, i
"We asked the powers to be. snd be activ-tailincs enered with dirtwho g said there were no qualms-uie AEC belle s his 'eukemia :s somenow re-wouldn't 'et them [:tve eut fdll :f it lated to her exposure over the years sasa t sede.* says Seren Sorensen of to the radioactn e uranium site.
Grand J unctio n, remem oering the Now 16. Jon. sho used to live day s in 15 i s nen he obtalced 10. IS around the corr.er frorn Alan Siau-ton truckloacs of uraniu=s wastes ghan and nuw is a Salt Lake City rest-l frem the old C:imu M t.1 for th*
dent, nas been fichting leukem:a fat-home he wa.s bu&g. *! etlled the eizht years. althou:n he was ones AEC and they said there was no pr@-
gn en only two years or so to live.
Iem."
But the otner four leusemia victims Sevan years later, the fill under bis have lung been Jane, youn;sters wna house was retnovad in 1 federal and spent most of their brief lives ;; rowing
.b st ate-f unced prograra that eveived up so close.o the ur,nium mill i frem fea of the poasible Icet ra ge So t..asual were their deaths that health effects of the racioactne sand federst bestth officiais ins esti.ated k that Sorensen and others had used to them in IM.
les el their lots.
Althou:n all of the children had
-1 )und cf cot < cared over the deal.'
leukemia that can be assocated with Geor;e Si;;s said of the ratlines that radiation. "no elationship* was foun:1 s ete under the fren 1 of h's with the uranturn mi!!. Dr. Glyn Cald-house. The B.;:s fanuy wnc c-s well, a career arer:ahst with the Cen-whether the raf tatten was related to ter for Disesse Contrnl. quoted from a the breast cancer of hit s. Darlene final ronrt on trie deat hs.
BJ:s.
Caldw ell ae s anw ied:ed. how ever.
-You don't know.' sad Genr:e that the inve='iestion focused on vi-E!sts. "But the carter tre taihn:s rutes then thought to seresd career.
we r-g
- c. the M er I felt. (Th*
Manticello was one of inree snut't-rad:at;oni sas p etty h:th ePet.a;!y ern C:an towns exan-tned in IM for rt:ht in that co rr.cr u e amnts to ured.unshic ineren<es ir leuke "la, w here a vi<itor is seated 7 nere the Caldwell said. T; e nther towns were s1fe ria ays ar t.
Thais why we Psrowan and Parawonan in the soutn-trou; ht mayba.t caused the cancer."
western part of tre state in Iron
/.11 LJad, ti,M ttr%ctures an Grand Canty, w r ca, a}ong with % aan.tngton, 9'
- '. c.. t>
"