BRC: Big Radiation Con?

The nuclear power industry may soon be able to dispose of "low-level" radioactive waste in unmonitored landfills and incinerators due to a little-noticed amendment to the "Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act" of 1986. The amendment, conceived by the nuclear power industry, calls on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to exempt much "low-level" radioactive waste from regulatory control.

Under the proposed policy, as much as one-third of what is now classified as "low-level" radioactive waste from nuclear power plants could be reclassified as waste that is allegedly not harmful enough to warrant government attention, or "Below Regulatory Concern" (BRC).

Waste currently classified as "low-level" includes nuclear reactor piping and parts; sludges, resins, filters and other materials used to clean reactor water; contaminated oils, soil and concrete used in reactor construction; and booties and gloves used by nuclear workers.

Currently, all radioactive waste, including low-level waste, must be deposited in licensed radioactive waste storage facilities where the source and amount of waste are recorded. The NRC monitors these storage facilities periodically to detect possible leakage. Wastes classified as below regulatory concern will be free of these restrictions and can be disposed of in the normal trash stream, i.e., at landfills and incinerators.

The Nuclear Information Resource Service (NIRS) strongly opposes the BRC policies, arguing that they will inevitably increase people's radiation exposure and will prevent communities from enacting their own measures to limit radioactive contamination.

In response to the NRC's proposed policy changes, cities and counties in Michigan, New York, Massachusetts and California, the Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the Service Employees International Union, United Steelworkers and the National Union of Hospital and Health Care Workers have adopted resolutions opposing the deregulation of nuclear wastes and expressing concern about worker and public safety.

A coalition of 18 environmental groups called "Blueprint for the Environment" has formally recommended to President Bush that all BRC policies be rescinded and that no further resources be expended to implement them. Organizers of Earth Day are encouraging citizens to engage their local landfill and incinerator operators in "good neighbor" agreements not to accept the deregulated radioactive wastes.

According to NIRS, the BRC policies "allow the commercial nuclear industry, in collaboration with its alleged regulators, to write the regulations that 'define away' nuclear waste for purely economic reasons as well as strip away state and local rights to protect the public from radiation or recoup[ing] costs in the event of future contamination problems."

Even a member of the NRC's Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste, Dr. Martin Steindler, warns NRC staff members that they should be cautious in their decisions on BRC levels because they will not be able to correct mistakes which result from underestimates of the effect of low-level radiation exposure.

Diane D'Arrigo, Radioactive Waste Project Director at NIBS, says that the motive for the BRC policy may lie in the impending crisis of decommissioning nuclear power plants. The cost of decommissioning is estimated to be near the cost of construction. Thus, to save on disposal costs, the industry would like to declare as much of the waste as possible as BRC. Disposing of low-level waste generated by operating nuclear plants will become increasingly problematic as three dumps will close in 1993. Nuclear power plants will then be forced to store their waste on site. This, says D'Arrigo, "has given the industry some pause."

Pesticide Cover-Up

"One pint of MASK-IT in one thousand gallons of spray mix converts a pesticide odor into a pleasant fragrance," according to the Rockwell Chemical Company's description of its MASK-IT product which is designed to mask the noxious odor of many pesticides.

In a letter introducing the product to lawn care companies, the New Jersey-based Rockwell, manufacturer of a variety of pesticides and fertilizers, writes, "experience has shown that the inefficiency and absenteeism is greater [among sprayersl when disagreeable smelling pesticides are used." Rockwell cites such working conditions for spray applicators as one reason lawn care companies should use MASK-IT.

When asked if masking the odor might also cause sprayers to be less careful in their use of pesticides, Debbie Stausenberger, Rockwell's customer service representative, told Multinational Monitor that "sprayers are already very careful, regardless of the smell."

Rockwell further informs chemical lawn care companies that since "an unpleasant odor is translated in the public's mind to be toxic vapors of hazardous chemicals," MASK-IT can remove both the odor and the public's concern "about possible health hazards and neighborhood annoyance."

Rockwell acknowledges that not all of the public can be satisfied by this cosmetic adjustment. "It is impossible to have an efficacious program following the dictates of the extreme environmentalists," Rockwell states. "However, the use of the pesticides with the broadest community acceptance can result in more contracts and less harassments."

By covering up the smell, the companies are trying to "allay the public's well-founded concerns and fears" about pesticide safety, says Susan Cooper, editor of the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides' (NCAMP) newsletter, Pesticides and You. Cooper adds, "if something smells bad, it sends a warning signal." She is concerned that with MASK-IT, people will "think there's not a problem."

Rockwell's Stausenberger contends that because of new regulations requiring public notification when pesticide spraying occurs, public awareness is not a problem. Such regulations have only been implemented in a handful of states, however.

MASK-IT may also have detrimental health consequences of its own, independent of whatever pesticide it is combined with. Produced and marketed as a fragrance, not a pesticide, MASK-IT does not have to be registered with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its ingredients remain a trade secret. But MASK-IT's label includes warnings which indicate that it is potentially hazardous: "harmful if swallowed;" "liquid may be irritatingto skin and eyes;" "vapor may be irritating to throat and lungs;" and "repeated contact with concentrate may cause allergic dermatitis."

Cooper says it is "typical of the [pesticide] industry to try to sugar-coat -- or make palatable -� a very dangerous situation, rather than change the foundation of the problem." She concludes, "We don't need these chemicals."

Signs of the Times

Hoping to forestall pending Congressional legislation that threatens to regulate billboard advertising, the billboard industry has generously contributed free public service billboards to several anti-drug campaigns. On March 6, 1990, the Outdoor Advertising Association of America (OAAA) announced that it will donate $5 million worth of ad space on 5,000 billboards to the Partnership for a Drug-Free America.

"Use of billboards for anti-drug campaigns is particularly ironic because addictive products � tobacco and alcohol � are the bread and butter of the billboard industry," says Edward McMahon, director of the Washington, D.C.-based conservation group Scenic America.

The donation scheme is not new. In July 1982, Signs of the Times, an industry publication, discussed the giveaway ad space saying, "it would be difficult for the mayor (or other politicians) to sponsor or support anti-billboard legislation or ordinances if he/she had been actively using outdoor advertising for their [sic] own projects." And when then-President Reagan endorsed reform of the Highway Beautification Act in 1986, the industry tried to give space to Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign in an apparent attempt to persuade Reagan to drop his endorsement of the legislation.

Scenic America calls the donations "public relations ploys designed to whitewash the industry's harmful practices � in this case the saturation of minority neighborhoods with tobacco and alcohol advertising." Advertising Age magazine reports that eight out of the top 10 billboard advertisers market cigarettes or liquor, and Scenic America holds that the advertisers target black communities. Scenic America surveys in Baltimore, Detroit, New Orleans, Washington, D.C., St. Louis, San Francisco and Atlanta document that more billboards are concentrated in black neighborhoods than in comparable white neighborhoods, with a higher percentage of alcohol and tobacco ads in black neighborhoods also.

The House of Representatives Surface Transportation Subcommittee held hearings on March 15, 1990 to consider the Billboard Control Act of 1989, introduced by Rep. John Lewis, D-GA, and designed to strengthen the original Highway Beautification Act of 1965 and further restrict billboard advertising. The bill is backed by more than 30 environmental groups. Senator John Chafee, R-RI, ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, plans to introduce similar legislation in the Senate.

The bill's success is not guaranteed. Although the billboard industry is relatively small, employing only about 12,000 people and taking in revenues of $1.4 billion in 1988, it has one of largest lobbying organizations, the OAAA, with offices in almost every state. According to a Scenic America survey, between 1983 and 1988, the billboard industry paid members of Congress more than $640,000 in honoraria. Only defense contractors and the tobacco industry paid more.

In most cases, those receiving honoraria support the billboard industry. Of 32 House members who received billboard industry money and voted on regulating the industry, 28 voted with the industry. In the Senate, 13 of 15 honoraria recipients casting a vote voted with the billboard lobby.

Between 1985 and 1989, 500 cities and counties have enacted new regulations to control the proliferation of billboards. Over 1,000 cities and counties totally prohibit billboards, including the states of Vermont, Maine, Alaska and Hawaii.

The Boycott Spill-Over

On the anniversary of the 11 million gallon Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska, new evidence is surfacing that the year-old consumer boycott against Exxon is having a measurable effect on the company. Service Station Management magazine writes that Exxon stations in New York City have reported significant reductions in gasoline sales. According to the magazine, "Gallonage drop-offs ... at area Exxon stations indicate the public is fed up with Exxon, and new talk of a dealer lawsuit for 'devaluation of business' indicates the dealers are too."

Maryanne Ragona, president of the Long Island Gasoline Retailers Association and herself an Exxon station operator, told Multinational Monitor that area Exxon stations are reporting a 10 to 14 percent reduction in gasoline sales, as compared to 5 percent for non-Exxon stations,

Declining sales may give a boost to shareholder resolutions proposed by environmentalists in response to Exxon's handling of the Valdez spill. Exxon management, in its 1990 proxy statement, has recommended to its shareholders that none of the resolutions introduced by environmentally concerned shareholders be adopted. Ralph Nader, in a letter to Exxon's chairman of the board and chief executive officer, Lawrence Rawl, recommends that "shareholders could begin healing the campany's damaged relationship with consumers by approving the pro-environment resolutions which Exxon management opposes." Nader further challenges Exxon's Board of Directors to heed the "public's outrage against corporate environmental negligence" and to reconsider the company's "short and long range policies for a rapidly changing environment."

� Katherine Isaac