Bomb Work Dumping Confirmed
By Raam Wong, Albuquerque Journal Staff WriterThe University of California has acknowledged the releasing of radioactive liquid waste into a Los Alamos canyon during the Manhattan Project that today is the subject of a wrongful-death lawsuit.
The university said in court filings Monday that "nondangerous quantities" of waste were released into Acid Canyon at Los Alamos National Laboratory during the development of the atomic bomb during World War II, continuing until 1951.
While the lack of environmental safeguards during the early days of the lab have been well-known, the historic dumping recently lead to a wrongful-death and negligence lawsuit in federal court that could be the first of its kind.
The family of Lowell Ryman, who died of the cancer in 2005 at age 63, claims that he was exposed to radioactive wastes while playing in Los Alamos-area canyons in the 1950s as a boy. The family says that exposure led him to develop multiple myeloma as an adult.
Ryman was 9 years old when he and his family moved into a home on Walnut Street in Los Alamos, where his father worked at the lab, according to the suit.
Between 1950 and 1953, Ryman was exposed to radioactive wastes including plutonium while playing in Acid Canyon, where the lab had dumped waste from Technical Areas 1 and 45, the family claims.
Ryman was also exposed to radiation from contaminated food, water and air, according to the complaint.
While no causes for multiple myeloma have been identified, research has found possible associations with a decline in the immune system, genetic factors, radiation exposure and other factors.
The complaint names as defendants the University of California, which ran the lab until 2006, and The Zia Company, the contractor that performed management, construction and maintenance duties until 1986.
In court filings Monday, the Regents of the University of California acknowledged solvents, metals, plutonium and other radioactive materials were discharged from the former Technical Area 1 into a tributary drainage of the canyon informally known as "South Fork" until 1951.
"Defendant further admits that former TA-45, located at the top of the South Fork of Acid Canyon, served as the radioactive liquid waste treatment plant and vehicle decontamination facility for the Laboratory, operating from 1951 through June 1964, treating the waste and discharging the remaining liquids from the mesa top down the canyon to the stream channel," the response states.
Both the University of California and The Zia Company filed separate motions to dismiss. Among other things, the motion argues the lawsuit's liability claims under state law are inconsistent with the federal Price-Anderson Act.
The federal law, enacted in 1957, governs liability-related issues at nuclear facilities and indemnifies government contractors involved in nuclear accidents.
The suit was brought by Ryman's daughter, Rene Ryman. Her attorney, Michael Howell of Houston, did not return calls for comment Tuesday. Howell has said the lawsuit could turn into a class-action suit if enough people come forward.
Mr. Congressman, looks like it's time to call for the shut down of the Pentagon. From the tone of the news story below, it's clear that too many cowboys and buttheads are working for the DOD...
ReplyDeletewww.ft.com/cms/s/0/
04dfa24c-3db6-11dd-bbb5-0000779fd2ac.html
-----------------------------------------------
* US Nuke weapons parts missing, Pentagon says *
-----------------------------------------------
By Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington, Financial Times
Published: June 19 2008 05:13
The US military cannot locate hundreds of sensitive nuclear missile components, according to several government officials familiar with a Pentagon report on nuclear safeguards.
Robert Gates, US defence secretary, recently fired both the US Air Force chief of staff and air force secretary after an investigation blamed the air force for the inadvertent shipment of nuclear missile nose cones to Taiwan.
According to previously undisclosed details obtained by the FT, the investigation also concluded that the air force could not account for many sensitive components previously included in its nuclear inventory.
One official said the number of missing components was more than 1,000.
The disclosure is the latest embarrassing episode for the air force, which last year had to explain how a bomber mistakenly carried six nuclear missiles across the US. The incidents have raised concerns about US nuclear safeguards as Washington presses other countries to bolster counter-proliferation measures.
In announcing the departure of the top air force officials earlier this month, Mr Gates said Admiral Kirkland Donald, the officer who led the investigation, concluded that both incidents had a “common origin” which was “the gradual erosion of nuclear standards and a lack of effective oversight by air force leadership”.
Mr Gates added that the Pentagon was evaluating the results of a “comprehensive inventory of all nuclear and nuclear-related materials [conducted] to re-establish positive control of these sensitive, classified components”.
Adm Donald briefed Congress on the results of his investigation on Wednesday. Bryan Whitman, Pentagon spokesman, declined to comment on the classified report.
A senior defence official said the report had “identified issues about record keeping” for sensitive nuclear missile components. But he stressed that there was no suggestion that components had ended up in the hands of countries that should not have received them.
But Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association in Washington, said the revelation was “very significant and extremely troubling” because it meant the US could not establish the positive control referred to by Mr Gates.
“It raises a serious question about where else these unaccounted for warhead related parts may have gone,” said Mr Kimball. “I would not be surprised if the recent Taiwan incident is not the only one.”
A senior military officer said the military leadership, including Adm Mike Mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, was “deeply troubled” by the findings of the Donald report. He added that they would be paying close attention to recommendations for improving nuclear safeguards that Mr Gates has asked James Schlesinger, a former defence secretary, to make.
Gordon Johndroe, National Security Council spokesman, declined to comment on the disclosure about the unaccounted for components. But he said the “the White House has confidence that secretary Gates through his actions with the air force is addressing all of these issues”.
Ah, but the Pentagon does useful work for the nation.
ReplyDeleteThere's probably no way to know for sure whether this guy's cancer was caused by exposure to LANL wastes, or some other cause instead (like getting too much sun).
ReplyDeleteNo doubt the UC will be paying out lotsa money to make this go away.
The Zia Company still exists?
Other a more positive UC news front...
ReplyDelete--------
June 16, 2008
The University of California is pleased to announce a new research opportunity funded by a portion of the management fees that may be awarded to the University for the management of the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) based on an annual performance evaluation process included in each of the two management contracts. The Regents of the University have directed that this net fee income, anticipated to be approximately $20M/year, be allocated to research that is related to the missions of the laboratories and emphasizes collaborations between University faculty, staff and students and the research staff of the laboratories. Letters of intent are due June 27 and full proposals are due Aug. 4.
http://www.ucop.edu/labresrfp
There's probably no way to know for sure whether this guy's cancer was caused by exposure to LANL wastes, or some other cause instead (like getting too much sun).
ReplyDelete====================================
The Plaintiff would have to prove a causal
relationship by the "preponderance of the
evidence" standard. Because it's really
not possible for the medical community to
assign cause to an individual case of
cancer; it is doubtful plaintiff can meet
the burden of proof.
Additioanlly, as the article states,
"The federal law, enacted in 1957,
governs liability-related issues at
nuclear facilities and indemnifies
government contractors involved in
nuclear accidents"
I see this heading toward a grant of
summary judgment, i.e. dismissal.
Plaintiff isn't going to carry the day
with both the science and law against
him.
"The Plaintiff would have to prove a causal relationship by the "preponderance of the
ReplyDeleteevidence" standard. Because it's really not possible for the medical community to assign cause to an individual case of cancer; it is doubtful plaintiff can meet
the burden of proof."
That sounds like the argument tobacco companies tried to make.
Additioanlly, as the article states,
"The federal law, enacted in 1957,
governs liability-related issues at
nuclear facilities and indemnifies
government contractors involved in
nuclear accidents"
The dumping of the radioactive waste was not an accident.
"I see this heading toward a grant of summary judgment, i.e. dismissal.
"Plaintiff isn't going to carry the day with both the science and law against him."
Do I see a lawyer trying to discourage potential class members?
Do I see a lawyer trying to discourage potential class members?
ReplyDelete=============================
NO - a lawyer giving an honest assessment.
This is NOT like the tobacco case.
The tobacco case had a statistically
significant sample - MILLIONS of people.
We have here a SINGLE case - and the
burden of proof is on the PLAINTIFF.
Without a statistically significant
number of plaintiffs in a class action;
this suit is heading for DISMISSAL.