BNL has a lot of accelerators. What
are they, and are they dangerous?
Accelerators are machines that speed
up charged particles, for example electrons, protons and atomic
nuclei. They are found in industrial, medical, academic, and research
institutions and have been in safe use throughout the world for
many years. They are used for treatment of cancer, determining
the structure of materials and research into the nature of matter
in the universe.
Accelerators can produce beams of particles
or light that require appropriate safeguards, including shielding
and enclosures, to prevent radiation exposure to people working
nearby. Accelerators at BNL are enclosed with concrete or earth
shielding to protect people. Of course, standard industrial safety
practices are used to protect workers for the non-radiation related
activities at these accelerators too.
Large accelerators can sometimes produce
local environmental effects such as the production of small amounts
of radioactivity in air, soil, or groundwater. BNL monitors conditions
around our accelerators and reports these to environmental regulators
and the public.
Our newest accelerator, the Relativistic
Heavy Ion Collider, or RHIC, has been built to modern environmental
standards. A public review process took place before we broke
ground for RHIC, and you can read the final report by clicking
here. We will operate
RHIC with the utmost concern for the environment and our neighbors,
including preventing groundwater contamination, preventing access
to the RHIC ring, and keeping noise to a minimum. For more on
RHIC and the environment, click
here.
Why did people near BNL get hooked
up to public water if there was no danger?
In 1995, chemical contamination above
federal and state standards was found in groundwater beyond the
site boundary. At least some of this contamination resulted from
past practices at BNL. (In 1990, contamination from a now-closed
industrial firm south of the Lab had been found nearby.)
BNL and the U.S. Department of Energy
asked the Suffolk
County Department of Health Services to sample the private
wells that were being used for drinking water in the North Shirley/East
Yaphank area. BNL and the Suffolk County Department of Health
Services also drilled test wells south of the Long Island Expressway
to further determine the extent of the chemical contaminants from
BNL and the industrial facility.
Through the sampling of residential
wells and the results of the additional monitoring wells, it was
concluded that the residential wells were not affected by the
contamination from the Lab because the chemical contamination
was deeper than the typical residential wells.
But, since protection of public health
and safety is the number one priority of DOE and BNL, and as a
precaution against possible future contamination, a decision was
made that it would be most protective of the public's health to
provide them with water from the public water supply system. Therefore,
in cooperation with the Suffolk
County Water Authority, free public water hookups were offered
to the 1300 homes and businesses south of the Lab still using
their own wells for their drinking water. Those hookups have now
been completed.
Why doesn't the lab sample everyone's
well for free to make sure there is no contamination?
In areas that cannot be affected by
contamination from the Lab because of known groundwater flow conditions,
i.e., homes to the north and west of the site, BNL and DOE cannot
justify using federal taxes to pay for the sampling of residential
wells, however, these homeowners may request that the Suffolk
County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) sample their
wells for a fee of $65.
In areas where BNL contamination could
potentially affect well water the Lab has worked closely with
the SCDHS to determine whether contamination is affecting people's
drinking water supply.
In the fall of 1997, the Lab paid for
testing by the SCDHS of approximately 65 residential homes to
the east of the Lab. This was done because of the potential for
contaminants from the Lab to travel in that direction. The water
quality from the wells met drinking water standards. New permanent
monitoring wells have been installed to the east of the site boundary
and will be sampled and analyzed regularly in order to detect
any migration of contaminants before they might reach any residential
wells.
Why do some people at the Lab have
bottled water if the water is safe to drink?
The drinking water at BNL
is not only safe, but of excellent quality. There are a few places
at the Laboratory where lead solder was used in pipes and drinking
fountains and some of that lead may leach into the drinking water.
The water supply to those specific areas were taken out of service.
There is also an aesthetic problem in some of the older buildings
in that iron (rust) from the pipes either colors or affects the
taste of the tap water. You can see the complete process of how Brookhaven
drinking water is produced here.
BNL operates its potable water system
to the same federal, New York State and local standards and reporting
requirements as other Long Island public water suppliers like
the Suffolk County Water Authority.
BNL maintains a rigorous potable water testing program that is
overseen by Suffolk
County Department of Health Services. We use both outside
certified laboratories and BNL laboratories for quality assurance,
and our water is better than the drinking water standards.
Of course, some people at BNL drink
bottled water for the same reasons people everywhere do they may
think it tastes better, they may trust it more because it's bottled
water - however, as you may have heard in news reports some bottled
water is of lower quality than public water.
How do I know that there's nothing
from BNL in my drinking water?
Independent agencies regularly monitor
the public drinking water supplies on-site and off-site to determine
exactly what is present in the water. Results of that monitoring
are reported to the public each year together with notice of any
wells that are taken out of service for any reason.
As a result of this monitoring, over
many years, there have been a few private wells southeast of the
Laboratory where tritium above background levels, but well below
drinking water standards, has been detected.
The Lab and DOE have installed monitoring
wells adjacent to Suffolk County
Water Authority supply wells to detect any contamination before
it reaches those wells. No contaminants from the Lab have been
detected in either the monitoring wells or the supply wells.
Anyone concerned about their drinking
water should contact the Suffolk
County Water Authority (631-563-0267) or the Suffolk
County Department of Health Services (631-853-3035).
Is BNL polluting Long Island's water?
Like any human activity on Long Island,
BNL activities can impact the aquifer underneath the Laboratory
and the Peconic River, which receives water from the Lab.
Past BNL activities have affected the
groundwater on-site and in some areas immediately adjacent to
the Lab. Possible impacts on drinking water are addressed in question
9 (above). It is important to keep in mind that off-site groundwater
problems are close to the BNL southern and southeastern boundaries.
Other areas of Long Island cannot be impacted because of the direction
of groundwater flow. All of these groundwater issues are being
addressed by our Superfund
cleanup program, which has built several groundwater cleanup
systems and is planning more.
Today, we are working to prevent any
further impact on groundwater from our current operations. We
have prepared a Groundwater
Protection Management Program to coordinate this effort through
our Environmental Services Division.
As for surface water, our current operations
are designed to protect the Peconic River, which begins on our
site. Our sewage treatment plant, after processing waste water,
discharges into a Peconic tributary under a New York State permit.
Each year, we publish a report detailing the content of our effluent;
you can read the current report by clicking here.
BNL and state studies have shown that,
due to past practices by BNL and the Army camp that preceded us,
there are contaminants such as heavy metals and low levels of
radioactivity, in the on-site portion of the river. BNL is working
with Suffolk County, New York State and local groups to plan for
the cleanup of this area. This area has been designated "Operable
Unit V" under our Superfund cleanup program. You can read
more about our activities in this area here.
Why do you have to pollute in doing
your research? Are you polluting our air and causing cancer?
Almost all human activities, whether
it is heating a home, driving a car, using cesspools or fertilizing
a lawn, result in waste that is potentially harmful. The important
questions are how much waste is generated and how much harm does
it cause to people who may be exposed to it.
Work done at BNL has generated small
quantities of radioactive and chemical waste. We have monitored
emissions from the Lab and reported them for years to the public
and to regulators.
Our releases have resulted in very low
exposures to the public and have been well below standards and
regulatory permitted limits. In the case of radiation the maximum
possible exposure due to BNL to someone living at the site boundary
would be a very small fraction of natural background. Nonetheless,
we are committed to continuing our efforts to reduce our releases.
We have active and successful programs which have reduced the
levels of releases that we produce.
I have read about radioactivity at
the Brookhaven Graphite Research Reactor (BGRR). My child visited
the Science Museum when it was at the BGRR. Was she/he exposed
to radiation?
While there have been several areas
at the BGRR complex that have been identified as needing decontamination,
none of these locations involve the space utilized by the Science
Museum.
Before the Science Museum was opened
for public tours in 1976, extensive surveys involving thousands
of checks for contamination and radiation were made of all locations
that the public would have access to. Follow-up radiation checks
were made throughout the period that the facility was used as
the Museum.
The museum was moved in 1997 because
remediation of other parts of the BGRR complex was beginning and
that activity was not conducive to having the public in the area.
The monitoring during the past year has not revealed any issues
which indicate that the public was at risk during the visits when
the Museum was in use.
Why should I believe that the Lab is
a safe place to work and live around?
Employees are encouraged to bring safety
and environmental concerns to the attention of their supervisor,
which normally are resolved informally. If this does not work,
these safety concerns raised by employees are evaluated by independent
investigation committees named by Laboratory management.
When concerns are found to be valid
they are addressed immediately. On occasion, concerns are not
found to be valid; and if an employee believes that resolution
of the issue is not satisfactory, there are many other avenues
he/she can pursue such as the safety hot line, the employee concerns
program, the DOE concerns program, or direct communication with
upper level management.
If all these avenues fail to resolve
the issue, the employee may choose to file a formal complaint
with the DOE and become what is know as a "whistleblower"
The Laboratory has over 3000 employees.
Talk to them about safety concerns at BNL and the response of
management in addressing them. You will find that BNL is a safe
work place and it is our goal to assure the protection of our
employees and the environment.
What type of environmental monitoring
does BNL perform?
The Lab monitors soil, air, water, vegetation,
and animals both on and off the BNL site. We also have radiation
dosimeters which monitor radiation levels on and off the site.
Results of this monitoring are reported in a publicly
available summary published every year since 1971.
The results of this monitoring have
demonstrated that the Lab releases are very low and within regulatory
standards. Radiation exposures to any member of the public are
low compared to the natural background radiation that we are all
exposed to. (For example, the maximum possible public exposure
in 1996 from BNL sources was only a small fraction of the background
radiation dose that all of us receive from natural sources.)
While our emissions are lower than the
allowable standards for both non-radiation and radiation, we continue
to be committed to reducing them further.
Are the deer, fish and other wildlife around BNL contaminated?
As the result of activities that took
place more than 30 years ago, low levels of radioactivity directly
attributable to BNL can be found in fish in the Peconic River
on-site and just off-site. These levels are very low and are not
harmful to people who might consume these fish (15 pounds of the
most contaminated fish would result in an exposure of 1/600 of
natural background radiation or 0.5 millirem). These levels are
also in the same range as levels of radioactivity found in fish
far from BNL and attributed to fallout from global weapons tests.
On-site, the Laboratory has several
unfenced acres of property containing low levels of Cesium 137
in the soil. As a result, animals consuming vegetation growing
in these areas receive some of this cesium and our monitoring
has shown low levels of cesium in deer on-site. The levels are
not harmful to the deer or to humans who might eat the meat from
these deer. If one sought out the most contaminated deer and ate
20 pounds of its meat, the extra dose would be about two percent
of natural background radiation. Chemical and other contaminants
in all wildlife are all well below permissible levels.
The Lab has had an active environmental
monitoring program for many years which examines air, water, soil,
vegetation, fish, and to a more limited degree, deer and other
such wild animals. For wildlife monitoring, we work very closely
with the Fish and Wildlife Division of the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC).
The purpose of this program is to determine if BNL releases are
within regulatory standards, to track movement of our releases
in the environment, and to calculate the levels of radiation exposure
resulting from our releases to members of the public. The reports
that tabulates the results of these yearly efforts are available
on-line or by
calling 631-344-2345.
Recently, environmental groups have
asked NYSDEC to ban or issue warnings about fishing or hunting
deer near BNL. The state has independently evaluated the need
for a such advisories and has concluded that they are not warranted.
In addition, BNL has already banned hunting on its site for other
reasons.
NYSDEC's conclusion on fish is based
on their finding of very low or non-detectable contaminant concentrations
in fish downstream from Brookhaven Lab over several years. The
state's finding is consistent with results of our sampling programs,
which also monitored fish downstream from the Lab. We are currently
preparing plans to clean up Peconic River sediments and soils
on the Lab property, in accordance with NYSDEC and U.S. EPA requirements.
The New York State Department of Health (NYDOH) has issued a report entitled "Deer
Meat Contaminated with Cesium-137 at Brookhaven National Laboratory."
This report responded to a petition from an activist group to
ban hunting at Brookhaven Lab and to issue a health advisory on
deer meat consumption.
Among its recommendations, the state
noted there was no need to ban hunting in the vicinity of Brookhaven
Lab, no need for a health advisory on deer meat consumption, and
some need to inform the hunting public of elevated cesium-137
in deer harvested around the Lab. NYSDOH reached these conclusions
because the projected radiation dose from eating BNL deer falls
below the level for which restrictions would be indicated. A person
would need to eat about 141 pounds of deer meat in one year to
reach a dose beyond which action would be warranted. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency has found that 95% of those consuming
game meat eat less than 88.4 pounds a year.
NYSDEC intends to inform the hunting
public of the elevated cesium levels to help hunters make their
own decision on whether to seek other areas to hunt. In addition,
Brookhaven is preparing a brochure and planning to meet with hunters
to explain the data that has been collected and to request donation
of addition samples to improve knowledge about cesium levels in
local deer.
How does BNL get rid of its waste?
Radioactive waste generated at BNL is
considered to be low-level waste. Most of this waste is shipped
to the DOE Hanford site
in Washington State, but on occasion a specific type of radioactive
waste may be disposed of at another licensed location. Other locations
that BNL has used include a commercial firm called Envirocare
located in Utah and a commercial waste processing company called
SEG in Tennessee.
Of course, work at BNL produces other
waste and we seek to minimize that waste by examining research
projects and processes to determine where opportunities exist
for using substitute materials. The Lab waste is categorized as
hazardous (chemical), low level radioactive, or mixed (chemical
and radiological). Each of these types of waste is processed differently,
but all are processed for disposal off the Laboratory site, and
in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.
You state that you comply with standards.
If you do, how come you have all the problems that you have today?
Almost all of the problems that we are
currently addressing arose from disposal practices conducted in
the 1950s and 60s, which were legal at that time. Society's understanding
and expectations for disposal then were far different from what
is expected now. BNL's disposal practices were deemed acceptable
and appropriate at that time period. Today, the results of those
disposal practices, including groundwater contamination, Peconic
River sediment contamination, and buried wastes and waste containment
systems, are being addressed and cleaned up through our environmental
restoration program.
Almost all of the current environmental
regulations in effect today were developed in the 1970s-80s. We
have complied with these regulations since they were put in effect,
and we continue to strive to do so.
There have been some specific events
in current operation, such as a 25,000 gallon oil spill in 1977
created by a tank failure during an intense rain storm and, of
course, the failure to detect the tritium plume created by a 6-9
gallon per day loss through the 3-foot thick concrete walls of
the HFBR spent fuel pool. When these arise, we work to address
them as thoroughly and as quickly as possible, in conjunction
with our environmental
regulators and the U.S. Department of Energy.
Some of our problems have been created
by historical facilities, such as the Graphite Reactor, which
was not adequately de-commissioned and did not receive enough
surveillance. These problems have been corrected and we are committed
to preventing future recurrences.
Isn't BNL the most contaminated location
on Long Island?
BNL is one of 23 Federal Superfund sites
located on Long Island. In addition, there are over 100 New York
State Superfund sites in the area. BNL is one of the largest such
sites in the area and has received the most attention. Determining
the "most contaminated" site is not possible since contaminant
types and levels differ from site to site as does the size of
the contamination area. BNL probably has a wider range of contaminants
than other sites in that various chemicals, heavy metals and radioactivity
have been found in groundwater and soils.
A Hazard Ranking System is used to determine
if a site belongs on the National Priorities or "Superfund"
List. The score is based on the likelihood that contaminants have
been or may be released from the site, on the types of contaminants
present, and on the public or environmental threat a release presents.
BNL was placed on the Superfund list in 1989 with a score of 40
out of 100. To be put on the list a score of 28 is required.
What is most important is that contamination
found at BNL does not pose a threat to public health or safety
and is being cleaned up to minimize the impact on the environment.
You can find out more about what we're doing to address this contamination
by clicking here.
You tell us that your releases are
low compared to the limits or standards. Why should I believe
the standards are safe since they keep changing?
There are a number of factors which
have moved the standards to be more restrictive, including the
ability to measure smaller and smaller amounts of contaminants.
The current limits are set at very low
values, well below those that would create risk of immediate harm
to anyone from exposure to radiation or chemicals and studies
have not shown increased health risk at these environmental levels.
For example, everyone's unavoidable
dose from natural background radiation is far larger than the
non-medical, man-made radiation level permitted for the public.
Moreover, variations in natural background levels from place to
place produces differences between doses that are sometimes larger
than the radiation standards for man-made radiation -- and studies
of cancer rates in these areas of higher natural background radiation
have not shown increased cancer rates. BNL radiation releases
are less than the variations in natural background radiation that
exist even on Long Island.
What about the tritium leak from the
HFBR? Wasn't that very dangerous?
Many independent agencies, including
Suffolk County Department
of Health Services, have stated the leak poses no threat to
anyone's health. The water containing tritium that leaked from
the spent fuel pool (not the reactor) is far underground and has
not contaminated either on-site or off-site drinking water.
The total amount of tritium that leaked
into the groundwater is estimated at 5 to 10 curies, which is
about half the amount used in a common type of exit sign that
uses tritium to make light without batteries or electricity. To
put it another way, if all the water molecules from the HFBR fuel
pool that contained tritium atoms could be separated from the
rest of the non-tritiated, normal water molecules that leaked
from the pool (about 30,000 gallons), it would be the volume of
a couple of sesame seeds. This very small amount can only be measured
because our instruments are so sensitive.
Once detected in the groundwater, the
tritium was treated aggressively because of public, Laboratory
and DOE concerns. The HFBR was maintained in a shut down condition
while the spent fuel and other components were removed so that
the water could be drained from the pool. This was accomplished
in December 1997 and stopped the slow leak of contaminated water
from the pool.
During the tritium investigation, we
installed 140 monitoring wells and analyzed over 1,800 groundwater
samples in an effort to characterize the extent and concentration
of the groundwater plume. The results showed that no contaminated
water from this source had left the site boundary and that the
contamination did not present a health threat to the public or
Lab employees. A pumping system was installed about midway between
the HFBR and the site boundary to stop the migration of the plume
and to ensure that no contamination above the safe drinking water
standard would travel beyond that point while a permanent remedy
was evaluated, which will include community input.
If you failed to detect the tritium
leak out of the spent-fuel pool for 12 years, why should I trust
you to continue working with radiation and chemicals on the site?
BNL has made so many mistakes in the past. Why should we trust
you now?
The pool leak has been an embarrassing
issue for the Lab and has clearly reduced public confidence in
our ability to manage our facilities safely. Even though the measurement
of the leak was difficult, we should have done it better and we
can and will do better in looking for potential impacts to the
environment. Perhaps we focused too much on what were viewed as
higher risks.
In any case, we are seeking to be more
responsive to concerns of the public and our regulators and to
demonstrate that we are managing materials safely. Employees of
the regulatory authorities have
been present at our site on a daily basis.
In 1997, we completed an exhaustive
historical review of activities and facilities at the Laboratory.
This included contacting many retired employees in order to identify
potential sources of contamination. We have signed an agreement
with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency which calls for an extensive review of all our work
processes to assure that materials are safely handled and waste
is managed appropriately. We are also subject to independent audits
of our environmental management programs for 5 years in order
to demonstrate the effectiveness of improvements that are being
put into place.
We believe that through these efforts
we will be able to demonstrate to the public and the regulators
that we can be trusted to carry out our programs in a safe manner.
Why didn't anyone take responsibility
for and/or get fired for the tritium problem?
As a result of the HFBR tritium situations,
and other environmental and safety problems that were found in
investigations following the tritium investigation, the contractor
that ran the Laboratory for 50 years was dismissed, and there
were also personnel changes at various levels even before the
new contractor, Brookhaven Science Associates,
took over.
The tritium leak from the 68,000 gallon
spent fuel pool was not the result of a deliberate act by anyone.
Leak tests had been made over the years, but were not sensitive
enough to detect the leak, which has been determined to be between
6-9 gallons/day. This is to be compared to the average evaporation
rate of water from the pool within the HFBR building of over 100
gallons/day. This evaporation rate fluctuated as a result of the
varying number of fuel elements stored in the pool and the changing
humidity, so a very careful measurement was required. When leak
tests were made by covering the pool the water heated up sufficiently
that it expanded and masked the leak.
While we know that this leak has not
polluted anyone's drinking water on-site or off-site, the Laboratory
should have made more sensitive measurements over the years to
detect this leak earlier.
Why does BNL continue to make so many
"mistakes?" It seems like I am always reading about
some new problem at the site.
Not all of the problems we report today
are the result of mistakes. BNL has established a policy of full
disclosure of all environmental issues of interest to the public.
We report issues that have no environmental impact on or off-site
simply because we want everyone to be aware of them and our response
to them. We believe that this policy of complete openness will
help restore public confidence in the long-run, even if it creates
public apprehension in the short term.
The Laboratory is a large site with
many activities. In the course of normal activities at any industrial
site spills or other minor releases will occur, but BNL, as a
publicly funded institution, has a special responsibility. To
that end, we have an occurrence reporting system that is intended
to insure that even minor issues are evaluated so that we can
take steps to prevent re-occurrence.
Some of the problems that are reported
are not recent, but are the result of historical practices and
are being evaluated as a part of our environmental
restoration program. Many of the reports occur when we have
achieved a better understanding of an old problem or established
a corrective action to reduce environmental vulnerability.
Some issues do reflect the need for
more diligence or improved practice by our staff in order to be
responsive to the expectations of our neighbors and to the expectations
that we have of ourselves. We are challenging our ways of doing
business and our individual attitudes. We are examining our training
programs to ensure that everyone at BNL has the skills and knowledge
to perform their work safely. We are reevaluating our individual
roles and responsibilities, and will be accountable for how we
do our business. This is a part of our commitment to the community.
What is the contamination that made
the Lab a National Priorities list site?
There is no one type of contamination
that put BNL on the list, but rather a variety of past practices
at the Laboratory site, some dating back to the days when BNL
was an Army camp.
For example, there were unlined landfills
where various waste products were disposed that resulted in soil
and groundwater contamination. There were also documented spills
such as a 1977 oil and solvent storage tank leak that were identified
as potential risks to the environment. Overall, the primary types
of contaminants involved with these examples are chemical, rather
that radiological, in nature.
What kind of contamination exists off-site?
Or at the Lab?
Groundwater contamination both on and
off the Lab site has resulted from activities carried out decades
ago that were acceptable in the past, but are not acceptable by
today's standards. An intensive assessment has been conducted
which has determined the nature and extent of groundwater contamination
on and off the Lab property.
The findings are:
1. Chemical contamination above the
drinking water standards has traveled off-site, though fortunately
at depths below the reach of private drinking water wells. These
chemicals are predominantly volatile organic compounds found in
solvents that were used in many industrial processes at the Laboratory
and companies throughout Long Island and the nation.
2. Groundwater contaminated by radioactivity
above the drinking water standards has not been found off-site
but has been found on-site. Most radiological contaminants stick
to the soil and will not move off-site. Tritium is the exception,
it moves with the groundwater. However, no tritium above the drinking
water standard has been found (nor is it expected in the future)
outside the site boundary. Low levels of tritium, well below the
drinking water standard, have been found in a few residential
wells southeast of the Lab and is probably due to historic releases
of tritium from the Sewage Treatment Plant.
3. Soil contamination exists on the
Lab property. Soil that has an oil and solvent mix is presently
being cleaned up through a soil vapor extraction process. Soil
that is contaminated with radiological constituents is scheduled
for cleanup by excavation in 1999.
4. Sediments in the narrow Peconic River
bed near the Sewage Treatment Plant on the Lab property have silver,
copper, mercury, and PCB contamination and very low level radioactivity.
The Lab is working closely with New York State wildlife staff,
the Suffolk County Department of Health Services and local environmental
groups to come up with the best cleanup plan. This limited contamination,
however, has had no effect on water in residential wells.
For more on BNL's environmental restoration
program, click here.
When will the cleanup of BNL be completed
and how much will it cost the taxpayers?
BNL is working very hard to complete
the cleanup as soon as possible. At the present time, the projected
budgets will allow most of the work to be completed by the year
2006. The primary sources of groundwater contamination (unlined
landfills and underground storage tanks) have been eliminated.
The work that will go beyond 2006 is
the long-term cleanup of the groundwater and the continued monitoring
of the groundwater treatment systems and the surrounding areas.
BNL and DOE are exploring the possibility of obtaining additional
funding to accelerate the completion date for the cleanup.
The overall cost of the program from
its inception in 1992 to 2006 has been estimated at approximately
$250 million. Funding for the Superfund cleanup is the responsibility
of the U.S. Department of Energy.
You're using "pump and treat"
systems to clean groundwater in several locations. Doesn't a pump
and treat system just transfer pollution from the water to the
air?
The standard pump and treat system does
take contamination out of groundwater and release emissions to
air, but as explained below this is useful and safe, and has been
approved by environmental regulators.
In addition, BNL plans to start cleaning
groundwater off our site using an innovative new technique called
in-well sparging. Through this technique, contaminants are removed
from water and captured in a carbon filter in a closed loop system
so they are not released to air.
The standard pump and treat systems
we have already begun using work by extracting contaminated water
from the ground and pumping it to an "air stripping"
facility where the volatile organic compounds are separated from
the water. The clean water is then returned to the ground (recharged)
and the volatile organic compounds are released into the air via
a stack at concentrations lower than clean air standards. Thus,
both air and water meet regulatory standards.
Safe water quality and air quality standards
are established by independent
regulatory agencies to protect public health. The standards
for volatile organic compounds, which is the primary category
of chemicals removed in the BNL pump and treat systems, are much
lower in drinking water than in air because the ingestion of low
concentrations of these chemicals can be more harmful than the
inhalation of low concentrations.
For instance, one of the contaminants
found in the groundwater is carbon tetrachloride. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency has established a safe drinking
water standard of 5 parts per billion, while the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has established a
safe air concentration in the work place of 8 parts per million,
more than 1,000 times higher than the safe drinking water standard.
Measurements are taken during operation
of a pump and treat system to ensure that the emissions meet or
exceed the governing standards thereby protecting public health
and the environment.
I hear there are increased cancer rates
on Long Island. Is the Lab responsible?
A. No. There have been two recent studies
of possible health effects in the vicinity of the Lab. In 1997,
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry found no
adverse health effects from groundwater contamination. In 1998
the Suffolk County Task Force concluded that cancer rates are
not elevated in communities within a 15-mile radius of the Lab.
A similar study by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services
found the same normal rates near the Lab. To receive a copy of
the Task Force report, please call 631-344-2345 or e-mail pubaf@bnl.gov.
If you're interested in learning about
breast cancer rates on Long Island, click
here to visit the home page of Cornell University's Program
on Breast Cancer and Environmental Risk Factors in New York State.
Will there be a study of Lab workers'
health?
For the past several years there has
been an employee health (epidemiological) surveillance, which
shows no unusual health trends.
A cancer-case matching of all the 25,000
people who have ever worked at the Laboratory is being carried
out by the New York State
Department of Health. This consists of sending employee information
to the New
York Cancer Registry who will compile the incidence rate for
a number of cancers and compare it to the rate for New York State,
Nassau and Suffolk Counties.
Since the registry is computerized only
for the time period 1979-1993 this will not be a definitive study,
but may indicate whether a further in-depth study by NIOSH (the
National Institute
of Occupational Safety and Health) is warranted. The New York
registry has reciprocity agreements with a number of other state
registries so the matching will not be limited to employees who
still reside in New York.
Do the old-timers who worked at BNL
have a high rate of cancer? Are you looking into whether their
cancers are radiation-related?
The data from our Occupational Medicine
Clinic does not indicate an unusual rate of cancer at BNL. But
past workers are included in the cancer-case matching that is
being done by the New York State Cancer Registry.
About 25 percent of the general U.S.
population is diagnosed with cancer over a lifetime. The purpose
of the planned cancer matching for past and current BNL workers
is to determine if there is an increase in the rate of cancer
among workers at BNL, including radiation workers, as compared
to other Long Island and New York State regions.
|
