All,

DOE just released a Notice of Intent (NOI) To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury. KCP is one of seven sites selected to be evaluated to “store” mercury starting in 2013.  Wonder if this has anything to do with the old Bannister site. What does one do with a 3 million square foot building that one doesn’t really want to D&D? Looks like the old KCP site scores 7 out of 7 on the preliminary criteria list. (See below) Certainly DOE is not proposing to store thousands of metric tons of mercury at the proposed new Plant.

The Notice of Intent is at -

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2009_register&docid=fr02jy09-45.pdf

Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Long-Term Management and Storage of Elemental Mercury

A few excerpts -

DOE needs to develop a capability for the safe and secure long-term management and storage of elemental mercury as required by the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008.

DOE’s facility or facilities must be operational by January 1, 2013, and ready to accept custody of elemental mercury delivered to such a facility.

DOE invites public comment on the scope of this EIS during a 45-day public scoping period ending on August 17, 2009. In defining the scope of the EIS, DOE will consider all comments received or postmarked by the end of the scoping period.

The EIS Web site at http://www.mercurystorageeis.com

This site doesn’t have much on it yet, but there is a place to submit comments.

DOE proposes to evaluate the following candidate host sites as alternatives for the long-term management and storage of elemental mercury:

• Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, MO

DOE will hold public scoping meetings from 5:30 p.m.–9:30 p.m.

On the following dates and locations:

• July 23, 2009 Embassy Suites Kansas City—Plaza, 220 West 43rd Street, Kansas City, MO 64111.

DOE has developed the following preliminary criteria to use as a framework for identifying candidate host locations:

• The facility or facilities will not create significant conflicts with any existing DOE site mission and will not interfere with future mission compatibility;

• The candidate host location has an existing facility or facilities suitable for mercury storage with the capability and flexibility for operational expansion, if necessary;

• The facility or facilities is, or potentially will be, capable of complying with RCRA permitting requirements, including siting requirements;

• The facility or facilities has supporting infrastructure, including a capability or potential capability for flooring that would support mercury loadings;

• Storage of elemental mercury at the facility or facilities is compatible with local and regional land use plans;

• The facility or facilities is accessible to major transportation routes; and

• The candidate host location has sufficient information on hand in order to adequately characterize the site.

Inventory: There are several sources of elemental mercury in the United States, including mercury used in the chlorine and caustic soda manufacturing process (i.e., chlor-alkali industry), reclaimed

from recycling and waste recovery activities, and generated as a byproduct of the gold mining process. In addition, DOE stores approximately 1,200 metric tons of elemental mercury at the Y–12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The Department of Defense (DOD) stores approximately 4,400 metric tons of elemental mercury at various locations.

An EPA report, ‘‘Mercury Storage Cost Estimates’’ (2007), estimates the total amount of elemental mercury from nongovernmental sources that would be eligible for DOE storage is between 7,500 and 10,000 metric tons over a 40- year period. DOE plans to use such estimates and other credible sources of information to develop an annual and long-term inventory estimate for EIS evaluation. During the scoping period, DOE invites commentors to provide inventory data on elemental mercury for consideration in the EIS.

____________________________________________________________________

Kansas City opposes mercury storage facility

July 24, 7:31 PMKansas City Buzz ExaminerAlexia Stout-Lang

Toxicologist Marcus Iszard speaks out about the health hazards of mercury.

Kansas Citians voiced opposition on Thursday to a proposed Department of Energy mercury storage facility to be housed within city limits. 

DOE officials held a meeting at the Embassy Suites on The Plaza Thursday evening to gather public comments about the possibility of establishing a holding facility that would house mercury from across the country in the Bannister Federal Complex, 1500 E. Bannister Rd.

Concerned residents and politicians alike urged the DOE to remove Kansas City from their short list of candidates to receive the facility. 

Kansas City is one of seven locations across the country being considered for a mercury storage site and it is the only site in a residential area. It is also the smallest site with a total of 300 acres, 10 of which DOE would devote to the mercury.

“I think most of us think picking a site in the middle of a residential area is so far beyond stupid that nobody thinks it’s really likely,” said Councilman John Sharp, of the 6th District, who has lived in south Kansas City for more than 40 years. “But the fact is you didn’t take it off the list. The fact is it’s still one of seven sites being considered. So I’m taking this real seriously.”

While approximately 350 residences are within one mile of the facility, there were only about 40 people present at the meeting and a large number of those people spoke out.

Sharp pointed out that the meeting was held quite a distance from the facility, which likely had an impact on turnout.

“I think if you had this meeting tonight where you should have had it,” he said, “this meeting would be packed.”

In addition to the residents, spokespeople for the city, for Congressman Emanuel Cleaver and for Councilwoman Cathy Jolly attended along with several environmentalists.

Dennis Murphy, Chief Environmental Officer for Kansas City, delivered a letter from city officials stating strong opposition to the facility. 

“The city of Kansas City requests that the Bannister Road Kansas City plant be immediate removed from further consideration as a potential storage site,” he said. “We feel the site does not meet the requirements.”

UMKC Professor of Toxicology Marcus Iszard noted mercury is a highly harmful substance and any accident could be disastrous for the surrounding neighborhoods. 

“I am concerned with oversight should something like this take place in Kansas City,” Iszard said. “As we toxicologists know, mercury in any form is dangerous. And looking at the potential effects of mercury, looking at the health impact and potential dangers in an area where people are in close proximity to mercury, it makes no sense to do this.”

He went on to explain that the fact that the government is promising the facility will only hold 95 percent pure mercury is irrelevant. 

“Science is only as good as today because tomorrow it might be outdated,” he said. “We are talking about if you put mercury in close proximity to people and something tragic occurs, intentionally or unintentionally, mercury will do bodily harm.  It will do more harm in a highly populated area. There is not an acceptable level of exposure to mercury. The only acceptable level is zero.”

Environmental Scientist and Consultant Kelley Kates said she is concerned about the lax regulations in the state of Missouri when the state will be responsibility for inspecting and regulating the facility.

“Colorado and Nevada are much better locations for this if for no other reason than the states’ records of being good regulators,” she said. 

Throughout the open comment period, many eyes filled with tears and some people expressed frustration with the lack of answers they were receiving. 

Only one man spoke in favor of the facility, stating he thought, “the dangers are outweighed by the jobs it could bring.” The man is not a resident of the area of Kansas City where the site is located. 

For more than an hour and a half questions, concerns and statements were recorded by a court reporter to be taken back and considered while drafting a environmental impact statement which will be made public in November. From November to January 2010, public comments will be accepted on the EIS and a final draft would be issued by late summer 2010.

But Sharp, and most others present, maintained that the city should not have to wait a year to find out.

“City council unanimously passed a resolution strongly opposing this site for a toxic metal storage facility,” Sharp said. “Our environmental staff has been in touch wit DOE staff ever since this was published trying to persuade you that because this so obviously violated so many of your criteria that this should be dropped from consideration early in the process rather than late in the process.”

Sharon Duncan, who has lived less than a mile from the complex for 40 years, was one of a few who echoed the sentiment.  

“I would appreciate your consideration to take us off the list,” Duncan said. “And I don’t think we should have to wait a year for that to happen.”

Maurice Copeland, 32-year employee of the Bannister facility who said he knows quite a bit about the history of the location, issued something of a dare to the DOE. 

“Bring your mercury on in,” he said. “I’m confident Kansas City won’t have this facility.”

To submit comments by Aug. 24 or request more information, contact:
David Levenstein
EIS Document Manager
P.O. Box 2612
Gernmantown, MD 20874
Toll free fax: 1-877-274-5462
www.mercurystorageeis.com