Friday, December 24, 2010




AUSTIN — In a move decried by environmentalists, state regulators decided late Thursday to schedule a vote that could allow three dozen states to dump radioactive waste in Texas.

The Texas Compact Commission set a Jan. 4 meeting to decide whether to expand how much low-level radioactive waste could be processed at a dump in remote Andrews County, in far West Texas. The announcement came as environmentalists and critics on the commission accused regulators and a politically connected company of rushing the proposal past Texans who are too focused on the holidays to even notice.

The public comment period on the proposal ends Sunday. The timing could also be designed to get support from two commissioners from Vermont, which has an agreement to deposit waste at the facility.

"It's too much, too soon, too fast," said Bob Gregory, a commissioner who opposes the expansion plan. "This whole thing is absurd. Why are we having a comment period at midnight on the day after Christmas?"

Michael Ford, chairman of the commission, said the rule has been under review for more than a year.

"We've been working on this rule for 16 months," Ford said. "That does not meet my definition of rushed."

Waste Control Specialists, whose majority owner is Dallas billionaire and political donor Harold Simmons, wants state regulators to approve its proposal to allow low-level radioactive waste at its West Texas dump site from three dozen states. As it stands, the compact site can only get waste from Texas, Vermont and the federal government.

The incoming governor of Vermont, Democrat Peter Shumlin, has criticized the expansion proposal. But he doesn't take office until Jan. 6. By then, the two commissioners appointed by his predecessor could vote in favor of it.

Texas environmental activist Karen Hadden, director of the Texas SEED Coalition, said she was "appalled" by the timing of the meeting and warned it could make Texas a dumping ground for low-level radioactive waste.

"This is an evil Christmas present from WCS and Harold Simmons," added Tom "Smitty" Smith, director of the environmental group Public Citizen of Texas.

After a news conference Thursday, Smith and other environmentalists rolled a black barrel, with a radioactive symbol on the outside, under the state Christmas tree outside the Texas Capitol.

Chuck McDonald, a spokesman for WCS, said the process has been anything but rushed. He said the same opponents who are attacking the idea are responsible for delaying action until now.

"It is a true misnomer to say this has been rushed through in the holiday season," McDonald said.

8-member commission The decision on whether to allow the importation of waste from other states rests with the eight-member Texas commission, made up of appointees by the governors of Texas and Vermont. Those states have a compact that allows both states to bury nuclear waste at the Andrews County site.

In the early 1980s, the federal government started urging states to build low-level nuclear waste landfills, either on their own or in cooperation with other states.

Should the commission adopt the rules, low-level radioactive waste from 36 other states could also petition the group to allow their waste to be dumped at the facility.

The dump, now sized at 2.3 million cubic yards, would be one of a few in the nation that could take low-level waste, such as clothing, metal and other materials from nuclear power plants, hospitals and university labs.

Locals are split.

In 2009, voters in Andrew County narrowly approved - 642-639- a $75 million bond to pay for the construction of the dump by WCS, which would pay the county a share of its gross receipts.

For Tim Gannaway, who was born and raised in the city of Andrews but moved in 2007 to attend the University of Texas at San Antonio, the decision to bring radioactive waste to an area served only by a volunteer fire department is foolhardy.

He also doesn't like the idea of his home county becoming a national repository for dangerous waste.

"Andrews is now the new Yucca Mountain," he said, comparing the WCS site to the federal radioactive waste disposal project about 80 miles from Las Vegas that might never open.

Others disagree. The closest town to the site is Eunice, N.M., home to a uranium enrichment plant, two gas processing plants and is less than 50 miles from the U.S. Energy Department's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant designed to hold radioactive waste from the Defense Department.

"Those kind of facilities have located in this area because, generally, the people in this area are very receptive to those kind of facilities," said Curtis Schrader, Eunice's city manager.

Viewed as patriotic Across the state line, Russell Shannon, president and CEO of the National Bank of Andrews, points out that the city did a study of the WCS site, which also has undergone 10 years of review by the Energy Department and the state.

The dump, he said, is turning ranchland that gets less than 16 inches of rain a year into a money-making enterprise that would provide a national public service.

"If we can safely store the material here, why would we not want to help the rest of the country?" Shannon said. "We think of it as patriotic."

The Associated Press and San Antonio Express-News reporter Colin McDonald contributed to this report.


Postal mail: Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission, 3616 Far West Blvd., Suite 117, #294, Austin, Texas 78731

Greetings fellow Texicans,

THIS is typical timing of such an event. This is how our Government gets bills and reports passed by the public. They usual do it late at night, on a Friday night at that, so it will be only late weekend news. they got it down pat too.

Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the house, Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse, but the rats they were a stirring, right in the House, Their pockets were lined, with money and greed, in hopes that St Nicholas would not have seen.

The children were nestled all snug in their beds, While visions of sugar-plums danced in there heads. And mamma in her 'kerchief, and I in my cap, Had just settled our brains for a long winter's nap, and again, our good Governor from Texas Rick Perry, stabbed us in the back.

When out on the lawn there arose such a clatter, I sprang from the bed to see what was the matter. Away to the window I flew like a flash, Tore open the shutters and threw up the sash, there was a bright glow from a far, in the west, it was a big bright flash.

The moon on the breast of the new-fallen snow, gave the lustre of mid-day to objects below. When, what to my wondering eyes should appear, but train load after train load of Nuclear Prolifer.

With a little old driver, his hair in perfect affair, all groomed and combed over, like a multi-millionaire, was atop the train of nuclear prolifer. The glow was so bright, it lit up the whole night. More rapid than eagles his coursers they came, and he whistled, and shouted, bring more, bring more, we will light up the whole game.

"Now Dasher! now, Dancer! now, Prancer and Vixen! On, Comet! On, Cupid! on, on Donner and Blitzen! To the top of the porch! to the top of the wall, thanks to Governor Rick Perry, we may all glow like a great big fire ball.

AS dry leaves that before the wild hurricane fly, When they meet with this fire ball in the sky, the money the received will be their final cry. So UP the house and the senate i say, and to you rick perry, i better not say.


I wrote about our good Environmental Friendly Governor Rick Perry and his willingness to bring nuclear waste from Ohio to Texas back in 2008. Seems the money is so good, he wants to now include 38 states to the list of states able to pollute the great state of Texas with Nuclear Proliferation waste. at a boy governor, you single handedly made Texas a toxic dump for nuclear waste. Course, which is worse, the air quality or the nuclear waste, which will kill you first ? This Governor has shown time and time again where his heart is, and it's NOT in Texas. ...

Wednesday, August 6, 2008

Company advances on plan for West Texas nuclear dump

(railcars loaded with MOUND COLD WAR NUCLEAR AFTER-BIRTH headed to Texas see photo)

Wednesday, July 30, 2008


(see more photo's of railcars loaded with MOUND COLD WAR NUCLEAR AFTER-BIRTH headed to Texas)

IT seems a more correct headlines would have read ''Company bribes Governor Perry to bury nuclear waste and contaminate Texas''. Waste Control Specialists. The company is owned by Harold Simmons, a ''TOP DONOR TO GOV. RICK PERRY, WHO APPOINTS MEMBERS TO THE TCEQ.'' The good governor has sold out to the citizens of Texas for train car, after train car of nuclear waste from 'the mound' Monsanto plant in Miamisburg Ohio. It just so happens, my father-in-law, who is down visiting now with us, has pictures of those railroad cars just sitting and waiting to come down to Texas. Odd how I was watching the news today, about this small plane that had crashed, it had showed pictures of where it had crashed right up near a bunch of tractor-trailer cargo container boxes in a parking lot. What would keep this from happening with those radioactive toxic containers in Ohio, at 'the mound', and or in route to Texas? You see, it's been killing my father-in-law, he has been on oxygen for years, but his breathing is getting more and more labored now, even with the oxygen. He worked at 'the mound' for years and years, and he is now dying a slow death from asbestosis, among other ailments caused by working at 'the mound'. NOW here is what I just cannot understand. This material is so toxic, in trying to gain further medical assistance from the DOE, the evidence that was needed to show that indeed my father-in-law worked their i.e. work records, paperwork records, payment records etc., they told my father-in-law, that they could not dig those records up, that they were buried due to high nuclear contamination, it was just too toxic, and that he had to prove that he had worked there. In which he did finally prove, and did gain further assistance. Also, ''Soward said a contested hearing could either rebut or support allegations that the agency ignored it's own scientific evidence that the site is geologically unsuitable to store material that will remain radioactive for tens of thousands of years.'' This is typical of the Bush Administration, and it happens all the time. The only science that the Bush administration knows, is junk science, bought and paid for by industry scientist. This has been proven time and time again ;

Reports and Research

Interference at the EPA

Science and Politics at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

snip...see full text ;

I think the title should have read, "TEXAS LOSES TO BE NEXT BIG DUMPING GROUND FOR NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION RADIOACTIVE WASTE", thanks to Governor Rick Perry.

update on my father-in-law Dana (RED) Ashcraft of Miamisburg Ohio, and my best fishing buddy, and Poisoned AT THE MONSANTO MOUND, hospice has now been called in. ...


part II December 25, 2010

WHY then, was my father-in-laws work records denied him, with the claim that his records were buried deep in a mountain due to contamination ? now i am speaking of only his work records, not the radioactive waste itself, that you claim to be 1000 % safe today. tell me that. do you know how many different folks handled all that paper work over the years. also, the swimming pool in Miamisburg Ohio, the old one right down from the Monsanto Mound. the town had to shut it down and fill the swimming pool in with cement. wonder how many kids there were exposed over the decades, including my wife ?


" We acknowledge that some people near the Mound Plant have breathed, or will likely breathe, very small amounts of plutonium-238, hydrogen-3 (tritium), and other radioactive substances that will be or have been released into the air from the Mound Plant. And some people may be exposed to radioactive materials released from the Mound Plant into the area waterways (for example, tritium in the Miamisburg Community Park swimming pool). Nevertheless, there is no evidence that current environmental levels of these substances cause adverse health effects. "

Data Evaluation: Current Exposures

ATSDR scientists reviewed the environmental data for the Mound Plant and concluded that there are no current exposure pathways to contamination from the Mound Plant that pose a public health hazard. We have considered all materials released from the Mound Plant, both radioactive and nonradioactive, individually and collectively, and their presence in all environmental media off site (such as air, water, vegetation and soil).

1.Radioactive Substances: Mound Releases Because nearly all Mound programs included work with radionuclides, the environmental and public health concerns that stakeholders most frequently discuss are those concerning radioactive substances released from the Mound Plant. The radionuclides in the environment that are a result of Mound activities and are of greatest concern today are plutonium-238 and hydrogen-3 (tritium). However, there is strong evidence from numerous environmental investigations--including our own--that plutonium-238, hydrogen-3, and all other radioactive substances from the Mound Plant contribute a very small amount to the total radiation dose that people living near the Mound Plant typically receive. Very likely, the largest radiation doses to nearby residents are those resulting from exposures to radioactive materials that are naturally occurring.

We acknowledge that some people near the Mound Plant have breathed, or will likely breathe, very small amounts of plutonium-238, hydrogen-3 (tritium), and other radioactive substances that will be or have been released into the air from the Mound Plant. And some people may be exposed to radioactive materials released from the Mound Plant into the area waterways (for example, tritium in the Miamisburg Community Park swimming pool). Nevertheless, there is no evidence that current environmental levels of these substances cause adverse health effects.

2.Nonradioactive Hazardous Substances: Mound Releases

The Mound Plant discharges small amounts of nonradioactive hazardous substances to the Great Miami River and to the air. People may occasionally be exposed to very small amounts of these materials. However, we do not think that releases of nonradioactive materials from the Mound Plant pose a public health hazard because the quantities of hazardous materials that are released are small and there is no evidence that the concentrations of these materials in the environment are high.

The pattern of nonradioactive contaminants in the environment does not suggest that those materials came from Mound. Mound's compliance record with the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency is good; their only regulatory exceedances in 1996 were NPDES (surface water) discharges from a private business on the Mound property. Copper concentrations in water exceeded the permit limit seven times. Mound officials reported the source of the problem was identified and corrected [14]. Based on current levels of contaminants off site and current levels of releases to the air and waterways, we do not expect that releases from the Mound Plant will pose a health hazard in the future, either.

3.Nonradioactive Hazardous Substances: Vicinity Air

The Regional Air Pollution Control Agency (RAPCA) collects air samples in a six-county area (including Montgomery County) for ozone, lead, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter analyses. Based on the regional air data, the important indicators of air quality in Miamisburg are ozone and particulate matter concentrations. Ozone and particulate matter in air are pollutants that are both man-made and naturally occurring. The RAPCA reported that one air station in Dayton, Ohio, exceeded the current ozone standard once during 1997 (in June). The particulate matter air standard was not exceeded during 1997 at any of the RAPCA air stations that collect particulate matter samples [15].

The U.S. EPA is in the process of implementing changes in the air quality standards for both ozone and particulate matter to reflect newer information on their harmful effects [16, 17]. The current ambient air particulate matter standards are based on the concentration of particles in air that have a mean aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 10 micrometers (called PM10) because particles larger than 10 micrometers are generally not inhaled deeply and usually do not cause health problems. In addition to measuring the concentration of particles in air below 10 micrometers, the new ambient air particulate matter standards will also require measuring the concentration of particles in air equal to or less than 2.5 micrometers (mean aerodynamic diameter, called PM2.5). RAPCA will be collecting PM2.5 data along with PM10 data to monitor compliance with the new particulate matter air standards when equipment becomes available during 1998 [15].

Mound scientists do not measure ozone at or near the Mound Plant, although they do collect particulate matter at their air monitors. Mound's annual environmental reports for 1995 and 1996 show the concentration of particulate matter in air samples collected off site near the Mound Plant met current state and federal standards [14, 18]. One air monitor on site exceeded the Ohio ambient air quality standard for particulate matter in 1996. The monitor is near the Miami-Erie Canal where engineers were removing trees and brush and digging up canal soils, and putting them in railroad cars to ship them off site. Mound's data indicated that air particulate matter concentrations around the site are slightly higher than is shown by the regional data. However, Mound's air monitors are designed to collect total air particulate matter, while the RAPCA's air monitors filter out particulate matter larger than 10 micrometers. Therefore, data from Mound's monitors are not directly comparable to the regional air data. Since we do not know what portion of the particulate mass collected at Mound's air monitoring stations includes particles larger than 10 micrometers, we do not know how their air data compares with the RAPCA's PM10 data.

In addition to the pollutants discussed above, the RAPCA reported that mold concentrations in air in the Miami Valley were high in the fall of 1996 [19]. Pollen and mold concentrations are measured by the Dayton Ear, Nose, and Throat Surgeons, Inc. in Centerville, Ohio, and reported to the RAPCA for publication on their Internet Home Page [19]. Pollen and mold are naturally occurring; air concentrations are affected by weather conditions.

4.Nonradioactive Hazardous Substances: Vicinity Soils

Nonradioactive contaminants, such as polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polycyclic biphenyls (PCBs), heavy metals, and pesticides, are widespread--though not necessarily in high concentrations--in the environment. Investigations of area soils in 1994 by Mound scientists revealed that some contaminants are found near streets and highways [20]. Those data from soil samples collected from residential properties (all within 3,500 feet of the Mound Plant) indicated that pesticide levels are higher, on average, in residential soils than in other soils in the vicinity. We do not know whether anyone will ever breathe or eat the contaminants detected in vicinity soils. We also cannot say whether the available soil data is indicative of soil at any particular location, such as on someone's private property or in someone's garden. Nevertheless, the contaminants measured in residential soils are not in high enough concentrations to pose a health hazard [20, 21].

5.Nonradioactive Hazardous Substances: Vicinity Water

Mound investigations of private wells and cisterns in 1994 revealed that some wells and cisterns had unsafe levels of lead or pesticides [22]. At ATSDR's request, staff from the Combined Health District of Montgomery County followed up with those residents who may have been affected. There is no evidence or indication that the lead and pesticides found in private wells and cisterns came from the Mound Plant.

Mound scientists investigated surface waters and sediments on and around the Mound property in the fall of 1994 and spring of 1995 [23]. The concentrations of hazardous substances in surface waters and sediments near the Mound Plant do not pose a health hazard. The level of contamination is consistent with DOE's earlier measurements of nonradioactive substances in area soils and with urban environments. Low concentrations of contaminants, particularly semi-volatile organic compounds, are widespread in the environment; many of the contaminants are attributable to motor vehicle exhaust. Interestingly, Mound's 1994-1995 data show that the water in the Great Miami River contains very low levels of chemical contamination; many of the analytes that are typically found in the area soils, ponds, and streams are undetectable in the river water [23]. We recognize that there are other exposure pathways besides air, soil, and water, such as eating contaminated, locally grown produce, or eating fish from the Great Miami River. We examine some of these other exposure pathways in Appendix E. Our evaluations indicate that the contamination in the environment around the Mound Plant poses no apparent public health hazard by any exposure pathways that we have considered.

Data Evaluation: Past Exposures

We also looked carefully at the available historic data to determine whether people might have been exposed in the past to environmental contamination from the Mound site at levels that could have caused adverse health effects. We have divided our conclusions into three groups: a) conclusions about contamination that could have caused some people health problems, b) conclusions about contamination for which the data do not indicate that the releases would have caused anyone health problems, but for which we are lacking some important information, and c) conclusions about contamination for which we believe we have sufficient data to conclude that the releases did not ever pose a public health hazard. We discuss historic releases in the remainder of this section.

1.Historic Mound Releases That Could Have Caused Health Problems The first group, environmental releases that could have caused health problems, includes microbiological releases from the Mound sanitary (sewage) treatment facility. Two incidents with the Mound sewage treatment facility--one in August 1982 and one in August 1983--resulted in releases that posed a health hazard to people swimming and boating in the Great Miami River downstream from the plant.

The health hazard from releases of microbiological contamination is indicated by the results of fecal coliform testing in one of the Mound liquid effluent streams in 1982 and 1983. The standard maximum permitted level for the fecal coliform test is 2,000 MPN (most probable number of coliform colonies) per 100 milliliters (100 mL) of effluent water. In 1982 and 1983 the maximum values detected were 24,000 and 16,000 MPN per 100 mL, respectively. The fecal coliform test is an indicator test for the presence of pathogenic enteric organisms (bacteria, viruses, and protozoans); it is not a measure of them. Nevertheless, instances of high fecal coliform in effluent indicate an increased probability that pathogenic organisms are present in the effluent and that the effluent poses a public health hazard.

Undertreated sewage may contain numerous pathogenic microbiological organisms. Specific organisms responsible for disease outbreaks associated with recreational waters are often not identified [24]. In 1982 and 1983, states' health departments did not systematically report disease outbreaks associated with recreational waters to the U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). CDC estimated that the reported outbreaks during this period represented a small fraction of those that actually occurred [25]. Ohio did not report any water-related disease outbreaks of any kind to the CDC for 1982 and 1983.

The single organism most commonly identified with water-related disease outbreaks in recreational waters is Giardia lamblia, a parasite that can cause diarrhea, intestinal cramps, fatigue, and weight loss [25]. Giardia lamblia is not a fecal coliform, and it does not come from a fecal coliform. However, the fecal coliform test indicates the presence of pathogens that are not coliform bacteria as well as those that are. Gardia lamblia is difficult to identify in sewage because it is generally present in the cyst stage, which is not amenable to laboratory examination. The human incubation period (time from exposure to illness) may be 1 to 4 weeks; illness from Giardia lamblia (called Giardiasis) is treatable. Children, the elderly, and individuals with compromised immune systems are most at risk for illness from exposures.

Salmonella and Shigella bacteria, and Hepatitis A and Norwalk viruses may also be present in sanitary waste effluent [24]. Symptoms of these infections range from none to abdominal cramps, diarrhea, fever, and--very rarely--vomiting, delirium, convulsions, coma, and death.

We do not expect that anyone would suffer today from exposures to microbial pollution emanating from Mound in the early 1980s. The technical problems that Mound employees were having with the sanitary sewage treatment facility were corrected in the middle 1980s and there have been no reports of out-of-compliance fecal coliform levels in effluent since 1986.

2.Inconclusive Historic Mound Releases (Limited Data) In the second group--contaminants for which available data do not indicate that environmental releases posed a health hazard, but for which important data are missing--we have included both air and water releases of nonradioactive substances. We are not including the microbiological releases described in the first group, but we are including all nonradioactive chemical releases before 1971. In the 1950s and part of the 1960s, chemicals were released to the waste stream that flowed off site to the river without restriction. Also, in this same period, Mound Laboratory personnel disposed of solid and liquid wastes by open burning. Since we cannot identify or quantify all of the nonradioactive materials released to the air or water, we cannot estimate possible exposures to these materials.

We present a more detailed description of releases of nonradioactive substances from the Mound facility in Appendix A.

In the second group, we are also including releases of polonium-210 to the air and water. We have some air and water release data and environmental sampling results for polonium-210 collected during the 1950s. However, we do not have a continuous record of either releases to the environment or environmental sampling. The data we have do not indicate polonium-210 posed a public health hazard; however, institutional controls of releases were being developed in the 1950s and were not commensurate with today's standards. Since we have data gaps, we cannot estimate with any certainty the public's exposures to polonium-210 in the environment.

A more detailed description of releases of polonium-210 from the Mound Laboratory is in Appendix B.

3.Historic Mound Releases That Did Not Pose A Health Hazard The third group, where we have sufficient data to say that releases to the environment did not ever pose a public health hazard, includes all radioactive materials released from Mound, except polonium-210. These materials include plutonium-238 and hydrogen-3 (tritium).

A more detailed description of releases of radioactive substances to the environment, including plutonium-238 and hydrogen-3, is in Appendices C and D. Data Reviewed

ATSDR scientists reviewed many Mound documents for this public health assessment. Among the most important of these were Mound's health physics and environmental monitoring reports. The plant produced monthly reports before April 1954, quarterly reports from June 1954 through 1962, semi-annual reports from 1963-1972, and annual reports for 1972-1996. These periodic environmental reports (and others) are listed separately under Part 1 of the bibliography at the end of this document.

In addition to the periodic environmental monitoring data, ATSDR staff reviewed data collected from numerous investigations, including those of the plutonium-238 spill in the Miami-Erie Canal, the Conrail Bridge shoring, the Community Park water slide construction, the 1989 EG&G Energy Measurements overflight survey, and groundwater tritium evaluations for the Safe Drinking Water Act (Potable Water Standards Project) [26, 27]. We reviewed CERCLA-related environmental data in site-scoping reports, remedial investigation reports, and Operable Unit 9 investigations of off-site wells, regional soils, surface water and sediments, and groundwater. These Mound-related documents (and others) are listed under Part 2 in the bibliography at the end of this document.

Part 3 of the bibliography includes books and references that we reviewed for this public health assessment that are not specifically related to the Mound site.

We also obtained useful information through the environmental sampling program that we conducted with the assistance of the U.S. EPA National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory (NAREL) in Miamisburg in 1993 and 1994. ATSDR and NAREL personnel set up air monitors, surveyed the area with radiation equipment, and collected samples of the soil, water, air, and vegetation [28]. NAREL personnel and their contractors analyzed the environmental samples. Appendix E includes an evaluation of these data.

Prior to the Public Comment Release version of the Mound Plant public health assessment, ATSDR scientists conducted a health consultation evaluating the plutonium-238 in the Miami-Erie Canal [6]. We also wrote letters addressing off-site wells data [29], regional soils [21], Mound's proposed treatment for Operable Unit 1 (groundwater) [30], and Mound's proposed treatment plan for mixed wastes [31].


Health outcome data are measures of disease occurrence in a population. Common sources of health outcome data are tumor registries, birth defects registries, and death certificates. Health outcome data can provide information on the general health status of a community--where, when, and what type of disease occurs and to whom it occurs. Public health officials use health outcome data to look for trends in disease occurrence by comparing disease occurrences in different populations over periods of years. This analysis is useful to help identify the need for exposure investigations or public health intervention activities such as community education. However, health outcome data are not meant to and cannot establish cause and effect between environmental exposures to hazardous materials and adverse health effects in a community.

ATSDR scientists generally look at health outcome data for one of two reasons: (1) to evaluate the possible health effects in a population that is known to have been exposed to environmental contamination, or (2) to help address community concerns. For this public health assessment, we identified one completed exposure pathway at levels of health concern: sewage wastes released to the Great Miami River in the early 1980s. We examined water-related disease outbreak surveillance reports and did not find any indication that people became ill from those exposures. However, we recognize that if illnesses did occur from those exposures, it is very possible they were never reported to health departments. We also examined other health outcome data for the population near the Mound Plant to help address community concerns.

At the request of ATSDR, staff from the Boston University School of Public Health (BU) helped us with our review of the health outcome data. We did not identify any health databases for the community that included health outcomes other than cancers (for example, birth defects). Where cancer data were available, we looked at leukemias that have been linked in the medical literature to radiation exposure; otherwise, we looked at all cancers including leukemias. The community near the Mound Plant expressed concerns to ATSDR staff about the presence of many cancers in the community.

ATSDR staff note that we do not have evidence that anyone living near the Mound facility was exposed to enough contamination from the site to cause adverse health effects. Moreover, based on the weight of evidence (described in Appendices C and D), we eliminated as probable candidates for causing health problems in the community the contaminants of greatest concern to the community, plutonium-238 and hydrogen-3.

Most of the health outcome data for populations near the Mound Plant are county data. However, the Montgomery County population is more than 30 times larger than the population of Miamisburg and more than 100 times larger than the population within a 1- mile radius of the Mound Plant (1990 U.S. Census data). Although Montgomery County may include a portion of the population that could have been exposed to environmental releases from the Mound Plant, the county also includes many people who were not exposed to the releases. Thus, counting occurrences of health outcomes in the county population would dilute the real effect from exposures because many people were not truly exposed.

Moreover; Montgomery County is approximately 462 square miles. Many industrial facilities other than the Mound Plant are located in Montgomery County as well as in nearby Warren and Butler counties. According to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Toxic Chemical Release Inventory database, 49 facilities in Montgomery County reported releasing a total of more than 3 million pounds of hazardous substances into the environment in 1993 [32]. The contribution from the Mound Plant was less than 0.01% of this total. (Releases represent nonradioactive air emissions, surface water discharges, underground injections, and releases to land.) Since there are many other possible environmental exposures to account for, we cannot attribute the countywide health outcomes to exposures to environmental releases from the Mound Plant. For this reason, and because the county population is not a true representation of people exposed to releases from the Mound Plant, the countywide health data are not useful to us.

The only health outcome data for the general population near the Mound Plant that are not county-based are four reports from the Dayton Area Cancer Association summarizing cancer incidences (number and types of cancers reported) in nine area hospitals for the years 1985-1992 and, separately, cancer incidences for one of the reporting hospitals (Good Samaritan Hospital and Health Center) for 1984-1990. We do not know the residences of the people who checked into these hospitals, and we do not know whether they were exposed to environmental hazards from the Mound facility or from anywhere else. Without more information, we cannot calculate cancer rates from these data or compare cancer incidence between populations that may have been exposed to hazardous materials and those that were not, using these data. Therefore, these reports do not help us evaluate health outcomes that may be related to exposures to environmental releases from the Mound facility.

Finally, we identified three Mound worker studies. In general, worker studies may provide information on the health effects from documented exposures, and they may reflect on the safety record of the worker population. However, the Mound worker population is not the same as the general population near the Mound Plant. Mound worker health effects may be indicative of the types of exposures in the surrounding community; however, we expect the magnitude of exposures to workers to be more varied, and in some cases higher, than in the community. Therefore, we cannot infer that worker exposures are identical to those in the community around the Mound Plant.

We note that the Ohio Department of Health began to collect cancer incidence data at the zip code and census tract level in 1993. These data will be far more useful than the existing county-based health data in the future analysis of community health concerns. However, we note that, depending on actual environmental exposures to hazardous substances and the latency period between those exposures and the onset of adverse health effects, health outcome data collected since 1992 may not show effects from exposures occurring many years ago.


1. Private conversation, September 12, 1996. 2. NIOSH is part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which is under the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). 3. This number is from the 1990 U.S. Census. The City of Miamisburg, Ohio, Home Page on the Internet indicates the population of Miamisburg in 1995 was 27,290. 4. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986.

Then, they send all the radioactive waste to Texas. Now, we are going to multiply this by about 38 states ?

stupid is, as stupid does, and some times you just can't fix stupid $$$