DOE to include public in revising radioactive monitoring

DOE spokesman Derek Scammell said Energy Department Manager Gerry Johnson wants "to review the program and involve the public and make decisions based on that."

Last week, government technicians shut down nine air monitoring stations and eliminated seven water sampling sites from its routine monitoring network. The number of air and water samples collected annually by the EPA was reduced by 99 percent - from 4,000 down to 40 - and, instead of using the EPA's laboratory in Las Vegas to analyze the samples, the task was given to DOE's prime contractor, Bechtel Nevada.

The decision by the department's monitoring team leader, physical scientist Doug Duncan, to scale back and retarget the program caught many rural residents off-guard and left them wondering why the EPA's role had been reduced after the agency had guided the program since its inception in 1970.

"It's like we're guinea pigs again," said Helen Uhalde, whose ranch, 65 miles north of the test site, was struck from the program after decades of monitoring during atmospheric and below-ground nuclear weapons tests.

Duncan has said he decided to streamline the monitoring program because some stations and sampling points weren't needed because full-scale nuclear testing ended in 1992.

Energy Department officials said the cost to operate both the off-site and on-site monitoring programs is $3.1 million this year, down from $5.2 million last year.

EPA officials complained to the DOE and Bryan that the agency's independent role in safeguarding public health around the 1,350-square-mile test site had been jeopardized by the new program, which took effect last week.

Bryan said Monday that DOE officials have assured him "they will abandon plans to revise their radiation monitoring efforts" around the test site.

He said the new monitoring program DOE is developing will rely on independent testing.

"The message that we were not happy with the DOE plans clearly got through to them," Bryan said.

"They told my office that they will re-examine all options to give the public greater confidence in the independence and reliability of the monitoring program.

"People who live and work in areas around the Nevada Test site need a level of confidence that the monitoring program is effective. That will not happen if DOE is left to monitor itself," Bryan said.

archive