Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Watchdog Groups Blast White House-Backed Nuclear Cleanup Study
http://www.nextgov.com/cio-briefing/2013/04/watchdog-groups-blast-white-house-backed-nuclear-cleanup-study/62323/?oref=ng-dropdown
Watchdog Groups Blast White House-Backed Nuclear Cleanup Study
By Douglas P. Guarino Global Security Newswire April 5, 2013
Following scathing criticism from watchdog organizations, officials preparing a controversial report on nuclear incident cleanup reportedly backed by the White House have opted to extend public comment on the document by nearly two weeks.
Commissioned by the Homeland Security Department, the draft report suggests remediation guidelines in which up to roughly one in 20 people would be expected to develop cancer from long-term radiation exposure. The deadline for the public to comment on the draft report was to expire April 4, but its authors have opted to push the date back to April 15.
Under guidelines established by the Environmental Protection Agency’s Superfund program in the 1980s, cleanup of toxic sites in the United States are usually designed so that, in a worst-case scenario, no more than one in 10,000 people would be expected to develop cancer due to extended exposure to contaminants. The new report, organized by the private National Council of Radiation Protection and primarily drafted by federal officials, suggests such standards are not practical following a massive disaster such as the 2011 Fukushima nuclear plant meltdown in Japan, along with considerably smaller dirty bomb attacks.
<snip>
“The panel’s process has operated under the general public’s radar screen,” according to Lampert’s comments. “Had it not been for reporting by Global Security Newswire, (Pilgrim Watch) would not have been aware of the draft and the date set to submit comment.”
At least 17 other public interest groups have also expressed concern about the 587-page draft report during the last week, and had requested that the comment deadline be extended 60 days.
<snip>
Watchdog Groups Blast White House-Backed Nuclear Cleanup Study
By Douglas P. Guarino Global Security Newswire April 5, 2013
Following scathing criticism from watchdog organizations, officials preparing a controversial report on nuclear incident cleanup reportedly backed by the White House have opted to extend public comment on the document by nearly two weeks.
Commissioned by the Homeland Security Department, the draft report suggests remediation guidelines in which up to roughly one in 20 people would be expected to develop cancer from long-term radiation exposure. The deadline for the public to comment on the draft report was to expire April 4, but its authors have opted to push the date back to April 15.
Under guidelines established by the Environmental Protection Agency’s Superfund program in the 1980s, cleanup of toxic sites in the United States are usually designed so that, in a worst-case scenario, no more than one in 10,000 people would be expected to develop cancer due to extended exposure to contaminants. The new report, organized by the private National Council of Radiation Protection and primarily drafted by federal officials, suggests such standards are not practical following a massive disaster such as the 2011 Fukushima nuclear plant meltdown in Japan, along with considerably smaller dirty bomb attacks.
<snip>
“The panel’s process has operated under the general public’s radar screen,” according to Lampert’s comments. “Had it not been for reporting by Global Security Newswire, (Pilgrim Watch) would not have been aware of the draft and the date set to submit comment.”
At least 17 other public interest groups have also expressed concern about the 587-page draft report during the last week, and had requested that the comment deadline be extended 60 days.
<snip>
