Mitigating Nuclear Hazards - Part 7, High-Level Waste

I’ve spent most of my 35-year professional career directly involved in, or as an interested observer of, the nuclear waste crisis. This could be one of the biggest and most dangerously expensive problems for humanity to resolve worldwide as it has direct implications for the health and safety of communities, affects the military’s ability to use nuclear powered ships, as well as necessity of operating nuclear power to limit climate change impacts. Let me give a brief overview to provide my insights.

The issue is what to do with highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel that is now high-level waste (HLW) that it will be a problem for hundreds of thousands of years. In fact, a federal court required EPA to require calculations of future dose amounts up to one million years in the future!

The waste currently is filling up wet and dry storage capacity at existing nuclear power plants as well as military sites that are close to population areas. The risk of accidents or terrorist activity only increases over time so something must be done as soon as possible.

In 1984-85 working for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), I joined a technical group reviewing nine environmental assessments for potential locations to store and dispose HLW. Department of Energy proposed and NRC agreed with three sites for characterization (bedded salt in Texas, basalt in Washington state, and volcanic tuff in Nevada) but Congress decided only one site would be characterized at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The extreme dry desert conditions seemed ideal for HLW disposal. However, working at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in 1998 on site hydrology, I learned the southwestern U.S. had been a very wet site during the Pleistocene epoch about 15,000 years ago. The water table had risen 300 meters and altered clay minerals. Several underground experiments in the 7 kilometer tunnel indicated much more water was present than anticipated which flowed through fractures and could pose a problem for building a repository to hold HLW.

I kept working on the Yucca Mountain project at NRC from 1999 to 2004 to evaluate geologic interactions with HLW. One of my first assignments in 1999 at NRC was to review the Environmental Impact Statement by Department of Energy on the proposed Yucca Mountain repository site. It became obvious that leaving the used fuel in current locations near population areas is much riskier than getting the waste moved to remote desert location(s). The greatest projected risk would be to miners creating the underground repository from being exposed to naturally-occurring radon.

We looked at many issues (risk scenarios) and developed performance assessment methods. As with everything we found pros and cons for the site but no other alternatives were considered. I gained confidence in the site by looking at multiple natural and engineered barriers such as the two billion year old Oklo nuclear reactor that occurred in nature so we can look at how far radionuclides migrated. I also got to tour underground walking through the seven kilometer experimental studies facility the day after a magnitude 7.0 earthquake hit the Mojave Desert and shook Las Vegas. Underground I became surprised to learn there were no fallen rock or damage.

I left NRC in 2005 to become an environmental consultant then joined DOE in 2008 at the Las Vegas office to answer NRC questions on the Yucca Mountain license application and we made very good progress overall. However, after spending 20 years and $11 billion or so, President Obama ended the site program in 2010.

A book published this year by a former NRC Chairman, Greg Jaczko, describes his rise to power. After earning a Ph.D. in theoretical particle physics, he went to work in Washington on a AAAS fellowship with Congressman Ed Markey and then states, “In March 2001, I joined Senator Reid’s staff…to help him fight the Yucca Mountain project.” He describes the powerful Nuclear Energy Institute and cites his concern for the nuclear industry having too much control over the regulatory environment. With Reid’s support, he became Commissioner of NRC for four years then was appointed Chairman with the election of President Obama. He cites a conversation with chief of staff Rahm Emanuel who said, “…the president wants to address climate change and he needs to have nuclear power as part of that program.”

However, support for nuclear energy did not include Yucca Mountain for storage and disposal of high-level radioactive waste. Jaczko states, “…I pushed to make good on the president’s promise to end the program to store nuclear waste in Nevada. The administration had bungled the effort to close down the Yucca Mountain project, so I stepped in, using my full authority of my office to finish the job.” Later in the book he states, “Yucca Mountain was, after all, essential to the industry’s success. Without a permanent depository for used nuclear fuel, it would continue to face challenges to its effort to operate and possibly even expand.”

Jaczko (in my opinion) coldly describes what happened next, “In February 2010…DOE closed down the Yucca Mountain site. Thousands of contractors and federal workers were terminated.”

A blue-ribbon commission (BRC) confirmed that geologic disposal in required. Despite any technological progress that had been made, there is no political willpower to resolve the HLW crisis. The BRC listed their recommendations:

“The strategy we recommend in this report has eight key elements:

1. A new, consent-based approach to siting future nuclear waste management facilities.

2. A new organization dedicated solely to implementing the waste management program and empowered with the authority and resources to succeed.

3. Access to the funds nuclear utility ratepayers are providing for the purpose of nuclear waste management.

4. Prompt efforts to develop one or more geologic disposal facilities.

5. Prompt efforts to develop one or more consolidated storage facilities.

6. Prompt efforts to prepare for the eventual large-scale transport of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste to consolidated storage and disposal facilities when such facilities become available.

7. Support for continued U.S. innovation in nuclear energy technology and for workforce development.

8. Active U.S. leadership in international efforts to address safety, waste management, non-proliferation, and security concerns.”

In addition, the U.S. government agreed in 1982 to take HLW from the industry by 1998 so the feds are paying industry for not taking HLW. A report in 2015 stated that the federal government will pay utilities an estimated $27 billion assuming they can find a storage site by 2021.

The DOE made several failed attempts to get consent-based siting including in North Dakota and a storage site in New Mexico does not have local support either.

On June 7, 2019, Congressional Representative Harley Rouda, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, held a field hearing in Laguna Niguel, California on “Examining America’s Nuclear Waste Management, Storage, and the Need for Solutions with the following takeaways:

• The Chairman, Ranking Member and all witnesses recognized that the disposal of nuclear waste is a bipartisan issue and stressed the need for a bipartisan solution.

• Don Hancock of the Southwest Research and Information Center testified that it will be necessary to have multiple repositories in several locations across the country, not just a single facility located in Yucca Mountain,  as the Trump administration proposed.  

• Reprocessing nuclear waste is not a long-term solution for America’s nuclear waste storage problem.  Nuclear waste disposal will be needed for the foreseeable future.

• Chairman Rouda focused on the need to provide economic incentives to encourage communities to consider hosting long-term storage solutions.  Siting long-term nuclear storage facilities must take into account environmental and health impacts as well as safety concerns.

Other countries including Finland, Sweden, and France are making much more progress with finding solutions to nuclear waste storage and disposal. In Finland, according to World Nuclear News, a First in the World full scale test is planned this summer for underground disposal of spent fuel which needed to obtain an operating license.

Concert at Former Uranium Mill Site

Saturday night we enjoyed the Grand Junction Symphony Orchestra playing with Imagine Beatles tribute band in a concert at Las Colonias Park Amphitheater. This fun event involving 1000’s of people would not have been possible without the 30 year revitalization of the area! This site serves as a worldwide testament to many local people who cared enough and persevered through incredible obstacles to turn a horribly polluted site into a wonderful multi-use business park.

There is one person in particular who I believes deserves special recognition for this achievement and I thought of him, at least during the concert, as the Fifth Beatle! First, let me set the context with some interesting site history involving many cultures and generations. City of Grand Junction employees took great care to preserve the history of the site by including signs at the park in collaboration with Colorado Mesa University (CMU). According to the CMU history project,

“Above all, the story of Las Colonias Park is the story of different people coming together to form communities. From the Spanish and Ute traders to the Hispanic migrants who built lives and homes on its banks to the more recent community-wide efforts to restore and preserve the riverfront, this stretch of land has been a convergence point for people and culture. After nearly 30 years of work, the land is poised to enter into a new era as a developed city park, but it is important that its history not be forgotten in the transition. The history of the Old Spanish Trail, the sugar beet industry, the uranium years, and the remediation and restoration of the land are all vital to the story of Grand Junction: these themes demonstrate both the various cultures and the economic changes that have shaped the Grand Valley.”

In 1950, the Climax uranium mill began operating to produce yellowcake uranium but with the byproduct of over two million tons of waste tailings. This process is described on my recent blog mitigating nuclear hazards for production. The uranium mill operated for about 20 years and then became an auto junk yard.

The State of Colorado began in the early 1970’s to deal with radioactive mill tailings that became used in concrete construction as the mill had offered “free sand.” In 1978, Congress passed the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) and the program identified over 4000 vicinity properties around the Grand Junction area that needed to be cleaned up. Department of Energy built a new disposal site to remove the tailings away from the Colorado River. However, DOE could not remove the junk autos but instead provided funding to the State and City for removing non-radiological waste. More on the revitalization efforts are available on the DOE-LM, State CDPHE, and City websites.

After site remediation in 1994, the land was vacant for 20 years until the City obtained many sources of funding support to enable redevelopment. They are building the park in phases — I’m most proud of contributing to the City Park Phase 2 Amphitheater by providing permit reviews and a federal grant to support redevelopment of the former mill processing site as well as interpretive historical signs.

Now for my view of the most important person in this redevelopment process! Mr. Bennett Boeschenstein served Grand Junction as the Mesa County Planning Director and held various positions over his 40 year career including City Council and most recently as acting Mayor before his recent retirement.

Mitigating Nuclear Hazards - Part 6, Spent Fuel

As a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission project manager, I took tours and inspected several nuclear power plants for how utilities handle spent fuel. The fuel rods are very hot and extremely radioactive after being used in the reactor. The U-235 fuel produced heat energy as well as radioactive isotopes (elements that have the same number of protons but different number of neutrons) which are called fission products. For example, water is well known by the chemical symbol H2O with two hydrogen protons. Tritium is called heavy water because of an extra neutron and designated as H3. Radioactive substances give off three types of radiation: alpha, beta, and gamma which can all be harmful without proper protection.

There are three ways to protect against radiation: time, distance, and shielding. Radiation decreases over time following half-lives of radionuclides. For example, tritium (also mentioned in the previous blog) has a half life of 12.4 years so concentrations dissipate quickly as compared to strontium-90 which takes about 30 years for amounts to decrease by half or plutonium-239 with a half-life of 24,000 years. The more distance provided will decrease exposure to radioactivity as well as using metal and concrete for shielding.

If you look at a periodic table, calcium and strontium are in the same group 2 alkaline earth metals. They behave in similar ways, so the big concern would be that Sr-90 substitutes for Ca and gets into milk products or bones! That is why testing of the environment around nuclear power plants is so important to prevent exposures.

At the power plant, spent fuel is commonly kept in steel and concrete lined pools in water about 40 feet deep for at least five years. Some utilities have transferred older fuel to “dry cask” storage located at the power plant. I understand that the spent fuel will never be useful for reprocessing as is done in France and must be stored or disposed in a geological repository which is the subject of the next blog.

Mitigating Nuclear Hazards - Part 5, Reactors

Nuclear reactors are used to generate electricity, make isotopes for medical diagnosis and to fight disease, and for research including space exploration and environmental science.

According to the World Nuclear Association, there are 454 operating nuclear reactors world wide and 54 under construction. In the U.S., according to the Energy Information Agency, 98 nuclear reactors operate in 30 states and 2 reactors are under construction in Georgia.

In addition to reactors still operating, many plants have retired or been dismantled, which is known as “decommissioned.” Again, according to the World Nuclear Association, 115 power reactors, 48 experimental reactors, and over 250 research reactors have been retired or decommissioned.

Uranium fuel pellets contained within rods and assemblies allow for the nuclear chain reaction of U-235 that releases neutrons and produces heat to boil water producing steam that turns a generator to produce electricity. The first nuclear reactor was built by Enrico Fermi known as the Chicago Pile-1 on December 2, 1942. The first commercial nuclear power plant to operate in the U.S. was built in 1958 near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Since 1961, NASA with support from DOE used radioisotope heat decay to power deep space rockets such as the Cassini mission to Saturn.

The most common radioisotope used in medical diagnosis is technetium-99 (Tc-99), with some 40 million procedures per year, accounting for about 80% of all nuclear medicine procedures worldwide. I had this “Tech-99” test done many years ago to see how well my digestive organs function, including gall bladder, as a result of Celiac disease that’s been alleviated by my becoming gluten free.

Between 2003 to 2005, I served NRC as a Project Manager on relicensing nuclear power plants. I coordinated National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews for license renewal applications of nuclear power plants. Here is a list of license renewal applications completed by NRC. For example, I led the team to produce environmental reviews of the D.C. Cook plant on Lake Michigan near South Bend, Indiana. We compared the environmental and socioeconomic costs and benefits of continued nuclear operations as compared with all other potential sources of power generation and environmental impacts. Getting inside the nuclear power plant for inspections was a highlight.

One of the environmental impact issues that I raised concerned releases of tritium into groundwater, that were evident at D.C. Cook because Michigan state laws required groundwater monitoring of tritium. But at the time not all states required tritium or other groundwater monitoring which eventually became required by NRC. After citizens complaints, the Associated Press investigated in 2011 and NRC began requiring quarterly groundwater monitoring all all nuclear power plants and for industry to provide annual reports. Radioactive effluent and environmental monitoring reports are discussed by NRC. Here are two annual reports, A and B, provided for the D.C. Cook plant by Indiana Michigan Power.

According to NRC, “The list only includes leaks or spills where the concentration of tritium in the leak source, or in a groundwater sample was greater than 20,000 picocuries per liter (pCi/L). A tritium concentration of 20,000 pCi/L is used as the threshold for inclusion in the list because it is the drinking water standard in EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Act…. Ten sites are currently reporting tritium, from a leak or spill, in excess of 20,000 pCi/L.”

Recently, I coauthored a paper on using the fission track method for identifying naturally-occurring uranium in soil by exposing thin section samples in a USGS research reactor. Here is link to the abstract.

Several new advanced reactor designs “Gen 4” are being proposed to be safer and produce less waste. On June 4th of this week, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works held a hearing about advanced nuclear technology being developed world wide.

If you have basic questions about nuclear science and technology or live near a nuclear facility, here are some useful educational websites from NRC and EPA, and feel free to contact us at info@conserve-prosper.com.

Mitigating Nuclear Hazards - Part 4, Fuel

I rejoined NRC in 1999 until 2005 and got involved with nuclear waste disposal, uranium mill tailings sites, relicensing nuclear power plants, the 9/11 response to terrorism and the incident response operations center (IROC). Supporting the IROC involved conducting exercise drills to simulate various threats and potential to actual emergency situations involving numerous federal and state agencies. I provided maps using Geographical Information Systems (GIS) to show nuclear facilities, roads, population information and more. The center became an exciting place for observing how natural events like hurricanes could create storm surges hitting nuclear power plants which either kept operating or needed to shut down. One time while we were practicing a drill, we got a call from a facility that a truck driver transporting uranium hexafluoride (UF6) was missing. We launched into emergency mode for about an hour trying to obtain information on the transportation routes until the driver called into to the facility to say he had overslept on the side of the road!

So what is UF6 and how does processed uranium U3O8 “yellowcake” (as described in the previous blog) become fuel that is needed to operate nuclear reactors? Yellowcake is sent in 55-gallon drums to conversion plants to remove impurities and is converted to UF6 gas. The process is described by NRC and the World Nuclear Association with conversion plants located worldwide. The primary hazard is potential chemical exposure to inhaling the gas. Waste byproducts are produced and sites have contaminated groundwater, such as at the Sequoyah Fuels site in Oklahoma. NRC has reviewed and approved several license applications to construct new conversion plants that are on hold.

The UF6 canisters are then sent to a fuel enrichment facility where U-235 isotopes are concentrated from about 0.7% to up to 5%. The gas centrifuge process is currently the preferred method and only one plant operating in the U.S. is located in southeastern New Mexico.

A major byproduct of uranium enrichment is called “depleted uranium” (where the material contains about 0.3% U-235). According the the NRC, ”if an enrichment facility processes 1,000 kilograms (kg) of natural uranium to raise the U235 concentration from 0.7 percent to 5 percent, the facility would produce 85 kg of enriched uranium and 915 kg of depleted uranium.” Depleted uranium is used for military and aviation applications.

The 9/11 terrorist attack of crashing 747 airplanes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and in Pennsylvania, horrified the world. From our office in Rockville, Maryland at the NRC — we could see the fire from the Pentagon. I was the acting technical assistant to the Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) office director and immediately became tasked to join a committee to review all protective measures, such as at nuclear power plants. I was not aware that depleted uranium could have be used as ballast in aircraft and felt more incredibly shocked when the EPA Administrator told first responders that it was safe to breath the air at ground zero!

Here is an interesting article on the IAEA website about the properties, uses and primary concerns of breathing depleted uranium. U-238 follows a decay chain of radioactive daughters including radium and radon that is hazardous to breath where it comes from natural or refined sources.

There is a tremendous amount of depleted uranium waste byproduct requiring disposal. Hundreds of thousands of metric tons are stored at enrichment plants in Portsmouth, Ohio, and Paducah, Kentucky. GAO advocated for DOE to sell depleted uranium back to industry for use as a fuel which competes with uranium supply, causing downward pressure on prices, which is generally opposed by industry. Recently, DOE Secretary Perry agreed to limit supplies of domestic and Russian non-proliferation materials provided to the open market.

The enriched uranium is then sent to fuel fabrication plants to produce uranium dioxide powder that is compressed into pellets inserted into Zircoloy tubes for the fuel assembly.

Overall, there is significant processing and transportation required to produce nuclear fuel and most of the risks are chemical rather than radiological. The fuel rods do not become radioactively “hot” until they are used for starting the nuclear chain reaction at the reactor as will be described in the next blog.

Mitigating Nuclear Hazards - Part 3, Production

Tomorrow afternoon on June 6, the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Legacy Management (DOE-LM) in Grand Junction, Colorado will be conducting a ribbon-cutting ceremony for opening an interpretative center. Processing uranium began in 1943 at this location during the World War II Manhattan Project due to the proximity of nearby uranium ore deposits, ample sources of water, and railroad access. Various chemical extraction methods were tested to develop the milling process. Initially uranium was produced for the atomic weapons program and in 1953 President Eisenhower delivered his Atoms for Peace speech at the United Nations to find peaceful uses of atomic science and technology. This site became the field office for the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to promote and develop uranium resources which was later split into DOE and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

Uranium (U3O8) “yellowcake” can be refined by taking ore from conventional mines to a mill or at an above ground processing plant located near an in-situ recovery (ISR) mine, as described in Part 2. According to the Los Alamos National Lab website, “Uranium and its compounds are highly toxic, both from a chemical and radiological standpoint. Finely divided uranium metal, being pyrophoric, presents a fire hazard. In nature, U(VI) forms highly soluble carbonate complexes at alkaline pH. This leads to an increase in mobility and availability of uranium to groundwater and soil from nuclear waste repositories which leads to health hazards.”

Mitigating nuclear hazards at uranium processing sites are very different depending largely upon the method used to create yellowcake. A conventional mill produces large quantities of waste tailings (fine sand containing radium and metals) as well as liquid waste retained in ponds. Liquid wastes leaked or flooded many sites spreading surface contamination. In addition, mill tailings were used for construction materials like cement for communities near mill sites which can pose a radon exposure problem without proper remediation. Over 4000 “vicinity” properties were cleaned up in Grand Junction by DOE and the state program is currently managed by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Uranium mill tailings could continue to pose challenges in the U.S. and other countries, such as in Canada at Port Hope, for a 1,000 years.

In general, most of the hazards at mill sites, in addition to tailings management, are near surface issues affecting shallow groundwater and soil. By contrast, ISR mines inject chemicals into deeper groundwater zones that must be restored. In the U.S., all uranium production is controlled by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission or their Agreement States. According to NRC, “There are 37 Agreement States that regulate approximately 17,000 radioactive material licenses, or approximately 86% of all licenses nationally.”

Currently, the only operating uranium mill in the U.S. is the White Mesa mill operated by Energy Fuels at Blanding, Utah and regulated by Utah DEQ. Information on mills and ISR mines is available from several organizations including the non-profit Wise-Uranium.org.

My first professional employment after graduate school in 1984 was with the NRC assigned to oversee clean up uranium mill sites under the 1978 Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA). The law directed U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to remediate older, shut down mill sites (Title I). For active mills, NRC and Agreement States regulated the industry under the Title II program.

In 1985, I inspected the first mill site to be approved by NRC for remediation in Canonsburg, PA as mill tailings were being placed onto a synthetic and clay liner. I toured most of the other 21 mill sites under the UMTRCA Title I and II programs at various stages of remediation or closure as well as reviewed and approved environmental assessments and remedial action plans. The primary objective was to control radiation hazards by capping tailings in place or moving tailings to a new disposal site. Initially, groundwater cleanup at mill sites did not become a priority until about a decade later. One technical issue that I identified at Canonsburg was the importance of understanding clay mineralogy in natural and remedial designs in addition to hydraulic permeability considerations for limiting pollution migration at disposal sites.

From 2012 to 2016, I managed a dozen UMTRCA sites for DOE-LM including conducting groundwater investigations at Riverton, Wyoming and other sites and managing the three Grand Junction sites: the office (former Manhattan and AEC-DOE site), processing site that became Las Colonias Park, and the active disposal site. I’m most proud of contributing to the City Park by providing permit reviews and a federal grant to support redevelopment of the former mill processing site!

In summary, with adequate regulatory oversight and inspections, processes to produce uranium can be done safely and protect the environment.

Mitigating Nuclear Hazards - Part 2, Mining

Today, the National Mining Association (NMA) and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) are holding the second day of their annual Uranium Recovery Workshop in Denver, Colorado. The meeting brings together mostly industry consultants and government officials to provide a status of uranium mining in America. Uranium production within the U.S. mostly comes from in-situ recovery (ISR) uranium mines located in Wyoming as well as one operating mill in Utah; however, because the U.S. only holds about 1% of the world’s supply, the bulk of the uranium needed to fuel nuclear power plants comes from other countries.

Worldwide about half are conventional mines (open pits and underground workings) and half are ISR mines. Australia holds about 30% of the world’s supply but currently only produces about 10% according to the World Nuclear Association. The largest supplier of uranium in the world is the former Soviet Republic of Kazakhstan which produces about 39% of the world’s supply of uranium. The other big producer is Canada providing about 22% of world uranium supply.

In 1984, I completed my Master’s of Science geochemistry thesis at the University of Wyoming on the in-situ recovery (ISR) process to extract uranium ore using groundwater well fields. The ore is typically found in sandstone deposits within confined aquifers where uranium was deposited in the absence of oxygen in contact with carbon and removed with ISR by injecting oxygen and chemicals to change the acid or base content as measured by pH. This is depicted in the Wyoming Geological Survey figure as yellow oxidized sandstone and the darker colored reduced-zone ore deposit. The ISR mine injects chemicals to remove the uranium. What I found based on laboratory testing was that the ISR process to remove uranium seemed quick and efficient; however, great effort would be needed to restore the aquifer back to pre-mining conditions and that rock-water-gas interactions must be understood. Here is what EPA currently says about mitigating hazards at ISR mines.

In 2007, the price of uranium spiked due to low supply and increasing demand (as well as stock market speculation) to prices around $136 per pound, an increase of about 20 times in four years. This resulted in a resurgence of mining applications and NRC prepared a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS). I had worked at NRC just two years prior and was very familiar with the regulatory process for reviewing license applications. At that time as an independent consultant, I wrote a journal article to provide my public comments on mitigating hazards for ISR mining and aquifer restoration. I advocated the need for site-specific EIS reports to which NRC eventually agreed! Here is link to the blog and article and background information on the importance of the National Environmental Policy Act. I shared this article at the 2008 NMA Uranium Recovery Workshop in Denver to create discussions on both sides of industry and regulators.

On March 11, 2011, the 9.0 earthquake and tsunami in Japan devastated coastal communities and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. The nuclear disaster also sent shock waves through the industry initially causing demand to be cut, uranium prices to fall, and declines in mining production. However, as I will discuss in an upcoming blog on nuclear power, demand for uranium is rising as a source of zero-carbon energy production.

In January 2013, the U.S. Congress directed my office at the Department of Energy, Office of Legacy Management (DOE-LM) to evaluate old uranium mines that were operated by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) from about 1948 to 1970. I took on responsibility for managing the report on location and status of mines; based on permit records we found 4,225 mines that we reported to Congress. This report, delivered in 2014, spurred a new program to field locate and assess hazards at federal uranium mine sites. Hazards might include physical safety hazards from open shafts or chemical and nuclear hazards from hills of waste rock and low grade ore deposits. Here is a 2017 DOE-LM fact sheet on the process and preliminary results.

In December 2016, I took on an additional assignment at DOE-LM as program manager of the Uranium Leasing Program. AEC reserved 25,000 acres on public lands in Colorado for uranium mining. My efforts involved resolving a lawsuit filed under NEPA and the Endangered Species Act. Here is an article by the environmental litigants that sued DOE in 2011 and the case was resolved by the U.S. District Court in March 2018, just one month before my retirement! This appears to be a win-win solution for both sides.

During my 35-year career and currently renewed opportunity to express my independent opinion, I’ve observed very strong views of people in favor of uranium mining and nuclear power as well as strongly opposed anti-nuclear activists. Information coming from both sides is often skewed and obtaining the true facts is opaque. I’ve attempted throughout my environmental science career to stay neutral and find ways to improve the environment and public health by joining others to take positive actions. The most important action in resolving differences could be through more transparency and debate such as using NEPA public meetings before going to court to consider the benefits and risks of uranium mining worldwide. Mitigating the hazards of mining uranium in the U.S.and other countries might well be worth the risks of having (or not having) a dependable domestic supply of uranium needed for nuclear power generation of electricity. Public support for increasing regulatory oversight will cost more to consumers but is greatly needed to increase environmental protections and prevent or mitigate nuclear hazards.

Please share your views in the comments or send email to info@conserve-prosper.com.

What Get's Your Attention?

What’s popular that gets your attention? How do children develop their interests? Would you agree it largely depends upon home and school as well as what medium, such as books, TV or the internet, gets our interest and attention? When interviewing people for jobs, I’ve often asked what would they be doing if making money was NOT a priority? This helps reveal their true passion in life! My childhood developed my passion for becoming an environmental scientist and luckily my liberal arts education as well as science degrees gave me well-rounded interests.

So what gets your attention the most now and when you were a child? For me, I’ve been spending a lot of time recently looking at news feeds from my LinkedIn groups where I currently have 1,272 professional connections around the world. I’m also connected to LinkedIn news from very large user groups including the Project Management Network with over 860,000 members, Sustainability Professionals with close to 190,000 members, and Water Pros with over 47,000 members. So in total currently I’m able to reach over a million people through LinkedIn. Social media is having an incredible reach, which I’ll discuss more in a moment.

Looking back, what influenced you the most that got your attention to shape your education and professional interests? Growing up, I was lucky that my Mom’s brother Uncle Allan lived with us and subscribed to the National Geographic magazine — living in the Washington D.C. area I got to meet one of their photographers who attended our church who shared exciting stories about his world travels. The Undersea World of Jacques Cousteau was by far my favorite TV show as an adolescent which influenced me to become a natural scientist. His show ran from 1966 to 1975. What a thrill I had in 1984 seeing John Denver perform in D.C. on board the Calypso while docked on the Potomac River with Mr. Cousteau and his family!

The final episode last month of the 12-year Big Bang Theory series, as of May 21st, 2019, attracted 23.4 million TV viewers and the final season was the most watch show of the season (excluding sporting events).

You can probably guess the most watched TV shows. The Super Bowl generates the largest TV audience with the 2015 match between the New England Patriots and Seattle Seahawks attaching the most viewers in TV history with 114 million people! However, viewership has been dropping in recent years with the 2019 game being the lowest in a decade with “only” 98 million according to CNBC.

Incredible are the number of people watching YouTube videos. Several music videos are seeing billions of viewers like Ed Sheeran’s Shape of You with over 4 billion views!

So these days to attract the youth and get their attention maybe we will need to learn to sing and dance?

Planning for One Grand Junction, Colorado

I attended a public meeting last Tuesday night April 9th with an estimated 200 residents at the Two Rivers Convention Center to discuss the One Grand Junction comprehensive plan. Fortunately, this first meeting is only the beginning of many conversations to come about what we want this naturally beautiful area to look like in the next 10 to 20 years. The project website contains a social map to share ideas for where you live and find out the City-County boundary lines.

At the public meeting we shared our issues, concerns, and suggestions for future actions. The majority of the people identified Smart Growth as their #1 issue. Within in the city limits, we’re seeing a housing boom increasing over the past three years with corn fields getting converted to closely spaced single family tract homes, typically with eight houses per acre. There appears to be a lack of infrastructure planning to widen roads, build sidewalks and bike paths, create new neighborhood parks and preserve open space to keep the small-town feeling.

I felt surprised that water and drought issues did not rank very high on the concerns list. I brought it up to a few people who thought that they did not see people wasting water. There is much more work to be done to communicate water issues to the community!

The biggest obstacle I currently observe is the need for proactive jurisdictional partnerships. To put it simply, all the various government officials need to develop a unified plan of working together. About 75% of the land in Mesa County is federal. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management is being proposed to move its headquarters to Grand Junction but this did not come up at the planning meeting. The State controls funding for school districts and Mesa County is very poorly funded compared to more affluent areas of Colorado. Due to different tax rates, there are big differences between city and county services. So fulfilling the vision of One Grand Junction will take a lot of people finding and sharing common ground!

If you want more information on these activities, contact David Thornton, AICP Principle Planner with the City of Grand Junction, 970-244-1450, davidt@gjcity.org

Electric Bicycles for Enjoyment and Commuting

Electric bicycles (e-bikes) are gaining in popularity and becoming more affordable. Several bike shops in Grand Junction are adding e-bikes into their inventory of road and mountain bikes. For a great website showing reviews of e-bikes check out Electric Bike Reviews. I’ve been watching and test riding e-bikes for several years and have not been ready to spend $3,000 to $5,000 yet. I’m hoping prices will continue falling, just like with other technology, as the bikes become more popular. I’ve also been thinking if I got an e-bike it would be mostly for enjoyment to keep up with my son who can ride for longer distances as I get winded easily. The bikes are especially becoming popular with seniors who need the extra energy boost for an enjoyable ride. Buyer beware - there are some “cheaper” e-bikes coming from China for around $1,500 that lack in quality and reliability.

A friend of mine at work just purchased an Easy Motion (BH Bikes Emotion). Previously, he occasionally rode a regular bike from his home which is mostly downhill about six miles. But he found riding home discouragingly strenuous. So the e-bike is helping with the commute rather than driving his SUV. He purchased the Emotion bike for about $3,000 from Colorado E Bikes that specializes in building, selling, renting, and repairing quality e-bikes.

Yesterday, I rented an e-bike for this weekend. Colorado E Bikes charges $70 per day - however, I got the bike on Saturday afternoon and since they are closed on Sunday, I will take it back on Monday morning spending the one day charge.

The rental bike is made by Haibike. I rode the Sduro model home along the lovely Colorado River front trail with the top speed of 20 mph. The bike motor kicks in with pedaling to the speed of the bike and automatically slows down on curves and disengages when hitting the brakes. When I arrived home and after taking an hour break, my son and I rode together for about three hours. His top speed is about 10 mph and needs to walk up the hills. I found the Velo Plush saddle not fitting very comfortably and the handlebars lower than I would like.

Another friend recommended Populo Bikes and Commencal for bikes, parts and accessories.

So it’s great to experiment with various products and only buy something that we will really need!

Nordic Ski Track next to Powderhorn Mountain Resort

Twice last week I visited the Odin Nordic Ski trails! As some of our family and friends enjoyed downhill skiing at Powderhorn Mountain, located only 40 minute drive from Grand Junction, some others of us got outdoor exercise at the adjacent Odin Nordic Ski facility.

Last Saturday, Odin sponsored a cross-country ski race! While I enjoy the peacefully quiet outdoors, I’m also amazed by talented people who are in such tremendous shape to be able to race!

The Odin Recreation LLC owner really deserves our support for contributing to this healthy sport by working with nature to create this resort, sponsor the 2nd Annual race, and facilitating us getting our Rocky Mountain High in nature!

Government Actions Causing Earthquakes: Time to Celebrate Sunshine Laws and Groundwater Awareness

Government actions are mostly paid by individual and corporate taxpayers which requires transparency! This week we celebrate Sunshine Laws and Groundwater Resources awareness. Take a related example of brine injection causing earthquakes.

On Monday March 4th, a magnitude 4.5 earthquake hit southwestern Colorado near the Utah border. Some people in Grand Junction and Moab felt the shaking. The likely cause of this local seismic activity is from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s (BOR) salt water injection wells. The Paradox Valley contains naturally-occurring salt deposits and to keep salt water out of the Dolores and Colorado Rivers, BOR uses high pressure brine injection that is widely known to be causing earthquakes. See the Montrose Press as an example.

This week we celebrate the 20th Anniversary of National Groundwater Awareness Week March 10-16, 2019!

Also, the National Archives celebrates the 10th Anniversary of the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) — on March 11th there will be a special event!

Green New Deal: Inserting Realities into Radical Proposals

The Green New Deal proposed this month in Congress calls for radical changes to how we get our electricity. The non-binding resolution introduced by two progressive Democrats as reported by NPR suggests the energy sector can be converted to 100% zero-carbon power within 10 years while at the same time eliminating future nuclear power plants.

Can the U.S. realistically eliminate generating electricity from natural gas, coal and possibly nuclear sources in the next decade? According to the Energy Information Agency, here are the present sources of power generated in the U.S.: Natural Gas 33%, Coal 29%, Nuclear 20%, Hydroelectric 7%, Wind 7%, Solar 2%, and Biomass 2%

As you can see, 64% of current power generated releases carbon. Nuclear power does not directly emit carbon into the atmosphere and receives mixed to negative support by environmentalists. Currently, renewable wind and solar only accounts for 9% of power generation.

So it is not realistic to propose converting the entire power fleet in a decade to renewables only. Senator Diane Feinstein from California, which leads the nation in renewable power generation, said the Green New Deal must be modified to be more realistic, provide funding such as a carbon tax, and not have such an ambitious timeline. Most of the news coverage showed her defensively debating with children.

I believe that the Green New Deal is timely for creating the debates needed to move the United States from being the second largest emitter of carbon (China is the largest) to leading the future of green power generation and that rational realism, such as including new nuclear technologies as reported in Forbes, needs to be adopted in future legislation and energy planning.

February 2nd Groundhog's Weather Prediction Accuracy

Today, quite unusually,, Punxsutawney Phil did not see his shadow predicting an early spring! The Pennsylvania groundhog’s family has been making these predictions for 133 years! When our son was young we learned to sing the song to remember this event:

I’m a Little Groundhog, short and stout.

February 2nd I come out!

If I see my shadow, they will shout,

Six more weeks of winter no doubt!

It’s a fun song for kids and might stimulate their imagination for animal instincts and nature. Also, for the whole family the Bill Murray-Andie MacDowell 1993 movie repeatedly is a fan favorite!

But for rational adults, how accurate are Phil’s predictions as compared to actual temperature results?

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is part of the Department of Commerce which includes the National Weather Service. Not only do they provide life-saving, super critical data for all of us everyday, they’ve also compared Phil’s historic predictions to actual temperatures! Here’s some groundhog history:

“Groundhog Day originates from an ancient celebration of the midway point between the winter solstice and the spring equinox—the day right in the middle of astronomical winter. According to superstition, sunny skies that day signify a stormy and cold second half of winter while cloudy skies indicate the arrival of warm weather. “

Surprisingly, Phil’s saw his shadow to predict longer winters 104 years and did not see his shadow to predict early spring 18 years. In the past 10 years, Phil’s been correct only 40% of the time but that is like batting .400!

The Children's Fight for Sustainability: Jesus said The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth

In the United States, two groups, Our Children’s Trust and Earth Guardians, filed a lawsuit against the federal government in 2015 to give youth legal rights to a stable climate and healthy atmosphere. Their lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon states that government actions (filed during the Obama Administration) that are causing climate change violates the youngest generation’s constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, as well as protecting public trust resources.

In Europe this week, children in several cities are cutting classes to march and protest for a sustainable future. The BBC reports of 35,000 children marched against climate change in Brussels!

So what did Jesus, over two thousand years ago, mean in the Bible verse Mathew 5:5 by saying “The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth?” My reading of various interpretations is that Jesus encouraged his followers to be strong and humble - recall his actions against the thieves in the temple?

The environmental movement rise in the 1960’s focusing on local issues is transforming into a global fight for not just sustainability, to preserve resources, but for survivability! What would Jesus be saying right now given how destructive forces (eco-thieves) are robbing our children’s futures? This is a call to action for us all to become more informed about what we can do to reduce our impacts on the Earth. Perhaps we need an eco-inheritance tax rather than tax breaks for the ultra rich?

Finding Nature’s Fountain of Youth

Remember the story of Ponce de Leon who sailed from Spain to Florida about 20 years after Columbus looking for the fountain of youth? He searched for spring water that could heal all ailments to live a long life.

My growing up with asthma, the fountain of youth seemed magical to think that nature could heal us. I’ve learned to control asthma by living in a healthy environment with clean air and exercise. We’re still looking for the mythical fountain of youth but know so much more about living a healthy, balanced lifestyle by combining the best from western and eastern practices to conserve and prosper!

When I developed acid reflux as a young adult, I tried various antacids which did not solve the problem. I explored various treatments like Ayurvedic medicine that focused on my diet to eliminating toxins. This helped tremendously but did not solve the problem until many years later I learned about Celiac disease and needed to go “gluten-free.” That was over seven years ago when it was hard to find many wheat-free options.  Now there are so many great gluten-free foods and meals at restaurants available! But just because the food is gluten-free it still many not be healthy if loaded with sugar or salt. In general, reducing carbs and eating more fish, fruits and vegetables keeps us from gaining weight.

Recently, I’ve been learning more about the effects of stress causing inflammation that can lead to many diseases. Check out the website and publications by Dr. Mimi Guarneri, a cardiologist who speaks passionately about her work in Integrated Medicine. Listening to Dr. G’s audio tapes on the Science of Natural Healing, I had no idea that my frequent sinus infections could be caused by eating too much cheese and other dairy products!

So nature does provide us a fountain of youth when we care for our environment and are careful with what we eat and drink!

To Conserve & Pro$per: Let Us Count The Ways!

I heard Chinese Proverb many decades ago that says, “The more possessions you own, the more possessions own you.” At the time I loved to collect books and possessed an extensive library. As I moved around with many boxes of books I eventually donated the books and relied on public libraries. This took a great weight off of my back!

For over six years we’ve demonstrated that even living in an area of no public transit we are happy with one vehicle for our family. We are paying less for car insurance, maintenance, fuel, car washes, and we have more quality family time together. Personal vehicles like personal computers might be the trend but the costs to our pocketbook and the environment will only increase.

So will a carbon fuel tax be one solution to combat global climate change? This would promote green energy sources and decrease demand on hydrocarbons and burning coal for electricity.

The essence of learning to conserve fits many themes to shrink our footprint, have less impact, consume less, 3R’s (reduce, reuse, recycle), and promote more green space. We must plant more trees and preserve the forests and wildlife that remain!

For a New Year’s resolution, let’s all go on a diet and exercise more! Eat less, get thinner, breath fresher air, feel our connection with animals and the environment and find ways to recognize and solve our local, national, and global challenges.

May we all promote a peaceful and prosperous lifestyle!

Fighting for Our Health, Lives, and Climate

Today, 200 countries including the United States agreed to implement the Paris climate accord. What does this mean? See the latest from BBC News!

Also today in the news, a U.S. District Court judge in Texas ruled that the Affordable Care Act is illegal.

In my opinion, fighting for our health care and the climate directly affects the lives of humans and all life on Earth.

Mining coal can cause black lung disease. Burning coal can cause air pollution. Air pollution causes asthma and other illnesses. Illnesses will be covered by the Affordable Care Act rather than having insurance companies say people cannot get health insurance. Obtaining health insurance is currently difficult to afford due to the lack of competition, cuts in the program, and greed by many in the system.

The same can be said for drilling and burning other fossil fuels that contribute greenhouse gases that are causing global temperatures to rise, altering our weather patterns, making storms more severe, melting glaciers, raising sea level, and affecting all life on the Planet.

So we must keep working for our survival and challenge those you are in denial!