|  |  2. Removal of contamination 
 
 
        
          
            | High costs dim prospects External contamination feared
 |  "The Starmet site is heavily contaminated."
      Stephen Roberson (41), environmental analyist,
      and his colleague Christopher Pyatt (39),
      site manager, both employed by the state
      of Massachusetts, looked at each other over
      a map of the company grounds. "The only
      question is, where do we get the money to
      clean it up?" 
 I met Roberson and Pyatt in Wilmington, Massachusetts,
      at the Northwest Branch of the Massachusetts
      Department of Environmental Protection. The
      two are charged with handling the problem
      of radioactive contamination at Starmet Corporation
      (formerly, Nuclear Metals Inc.) located in
      Concord.
  An estimated $10 million 
 "The removal of sludge containing DU
      and other contaminants in the holding basin
      from 1997 to 1998 was a start. However, it
      will take more money to remove sludge from
      Cranberry Bog and contaminated groundwater
      and soil from under the former holding basin,"
      Roberson said reflectively.
 
 Roughly $10 million is the estimate of the
      Department of Environmental Protection. Depending
      on how far underground the contamination
      has spread, the cost could be up to five
      times higher.
 
 As the pollutor, Starmet should pay for the
      clean-up, but a drop in military contracts
      in recent years has drastically reduced business.
      Its staff is under 100, less than a sixth
      of its peak numbers. Neither is the state
      government able to fund the project. The
      company can either rely on the army, as it
      did for the first clean-up, or be designated
      one of the country's worst contamination
      sites and become eligible for the Environmental
      Protection Agency's Superfund.
 
 However, though Massachusetts congressmen
      and senators approached the military about
      the matter, "The military's pretty tight
      with its money," says Roberson.
 
 The situation is complicated by the resistance
      of some Concord residents to having a local
      property designated a Superfund site. "They're
      proud of Concord's history and culture, and
      they want to protect its image as an affluent
      residential area. Superfund designation would
      ruin its image and decrease property values."
 
 Roberson and Pyatt have explained the state's
      position at town meetings and other local
      gatherings. While basically respecting the
      choice of the residents, the state's stance
      is, "If the clean-up goes ahead, no
      one will care where the money comes from."
 
 "Nothing is more dangerous than leaving
      toxic pollutants in the environment. If they
      leak outside the company' property, we can't
      let the town's image stand in the way of
      a clean-up," adds Pyatt.
  Toothless national regulations 
 How did Startmet contaminate the environment
      to this extent?
 
 "Because it handles nuclear materials,
      its business license was controlled by the
      Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which
      also regulated and monitored its daily activities.
      However, there were no substantial regulations
      until 1985. Starmet was basically on its
      own."
 
 Roberson's explanation reminded me of the
      criticality accident in September 1999 at
      JCO's nuclear fuel processing facility in
      Tokai Mura, Ibaraki Prefecture. The failure
      of Japan's Science and Technology Agency
      to apprehend that facility's neglect of proper
      procedures was similar to the NRC's indulgence
      of Starmet.
 
 The Department of Environmental Protection
      first began to investigate Starmet in 1985.
      The initial investigation was not of radioactivity
      contamination from DU but of chemical contamination
      of well water on the premises. No full-scale
      radioactive contamination study was performed
      until 1991.
  Leaching groundwater 
 In one test, DU in the groundwater around
      the former holding basin measured 87,000
      micrograms per liter, roughly 3,100 times
      the state limit for tap water (28 micrograms
      per liter). Soil DU concentration averages
      about 460 milligrams per kilogram, or 23
      times the state's post-clean-up standard
      of 20 milligrams per kilogram. Contaminated
      groundwater is already leaching from the
      holding basin and moving rapidly toward the
      property's edge near the Assabet River.
 
 "It was seven or eight years from the
      time the demand was first made until the
      sludge-and only the sludge-was removed. We can't let it take that long
      this time." As they spoke, alarm tensed
      the faces of Roberson and Pyatt.
 |  
  "Our duty is to protect the health of
      the residents," say Christopher Pyatt
      (left) and Stephen Roberson. (Wilmington,
      Massachusetts)
 |