*****************************************************************
01/15/04 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 12.12
*****************************************************************
RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body
NUCLEAR POLICY
1 War Wire: France urges Iran to live up to nuclear commitments
2 Korea Herald: Foreign minister resigns over U.S. policy flop
3 BBC: North Korea sends nuclear warning
4 Korea Herald: [EDITORIAL]Foreign minister's resignation
5 US: Las Vegas SUN: Ensign says he won't vote to stop energy filibust
6 US: Austin Chronicle: Politics: Nuclear Posturing
7 US: Austin Chronicle: Politics: Nukes Are Back!
8 NUCLEAR TREATIES by Carol Wolman; Libya ratifies Comprehensive
9 deepikaglobal: Russia delivered 200 tons of uranium to US over 10 ye
NUCLEAR REACTORS
10 US: SD Union-Trib: Onofre reactor barred from Argentine waters
11 US: News-Mesenger: NRC to hold meeting to discuss D-B -
12 ITAR-TASS: Power unit of Balakovo NPS shut down due to malfunction
13 SOFIA: World Energy Giants Eye Bulgarian N-Plant Belene
14 US: NRC: NRC Oversight Panel to Meet on January 21 with Davis-Besse
15 CBC - New Brunswick: Lepreau waits for gov't approval
16 US: NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collecti
NUCLEAR SAFETY
17 Guardian Unlimited: Source of Rotterdam
18 ic Berkshire: Incinerators will create 'hell on earth' say GPs
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
19 [NukeNet] Judges Appear To Side With Opponents Of Yucca Mt.
20 Las Vegas RJ: FEDERAL COURT HEARING: Yucca foes gain hope
21 Tri-City Herald: Framatome plans waste lagoon, soil removal
22 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Forced to turn to the courts
23 Las Vegas SUN: No knockout on Yucca
24 RGJ: Court hears Nevada’s case against nuclear waste dump
25 US: AP Wire: Hearing on Duke's MOX fuel plans continues
26 Washington Post: Court Hears Arguments Over Nuclear Waste Dump
27 UK Independent: Ministers used nuclear rescue to 'cripple' British E
28 Las Vegas SUN: Yucca Mountain workers sought for lung disease screen
29 Public Citizen: Statement by the Plaintiffs in the Case Against
30 KLAS: Sierra Club Holds Yucca Mtn. Luncheon
31 KLAS: Local Yucca Mountain Fight Continues
32 canada.com: Feds warm up to uranium clean-up
33 Irish Examiner: Irish MEP calls for Sellafield probe
34 Whitehaven News: FRESH FEARS OF NEW NUCLEAR REPOSITORY
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
35 [NukeNet] US EPA, Others to DOE: Risk-Based End States Vision
36 TriCity Herald: Group says Hanford sublease is stagnant
37 Knox News: Y-12 vulnerable to terrorism, watchdog group warns
38 Knox News: No changes yet at DOE, TVA
39 Oak Ridger: DOE public hearing tonight
40 WATE: Watchdog Agency Calls Y-12 Plant Vulnerable to Terrorists
41 NewsChannel 6: how will USEC finance their new facility?
OTHER NUCLEAR
42 Google News Alert - nuclear
43 War Wire: Japanese minister draws blank in Moscow talks on nuclear f
44 War Wire: Canada withdraws from nuclear fusion project
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 War Wire: France urges Iran to live up to nuclear commitments
WAR.WIRE
PARIS (AFP) Jan 14, 2004
French President Jacques Chirac late Wednesday urged Iran to
fully apply its nuclear non-proliferation commitments and create
a "new future" in French-Iranian relations.
The call came during talks here with one of Iran's most senior
leaders Hasan Rohani which lasted just over an hour.
Chirac said that "France noted with satisfaction decisions taken
by Iran on the nuclear issue," the president's spokeswoman
Catherine Colonna said.
"He underlined that it was now necessary to continue on this
track and implement fully the commitments taken," she added.
"We would like a new future for relations between France and Iran
and to reinforce political, economic and cultural relations," she
quoted Chirac as saying.
Rohani, who heads Iran's national security council, made no
statement after the meeting. The Iranian official who arrived in
Paris late Tuesday is due to meet France's Foreign Minister
Dominique de Villepin on Friday.
He led negotiations between Iran, the European Union and the UN's
nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, at the
end of last year which led to Tehran signing the additional
protocol to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty last month.
The United States accused Iran of secretly working to manufacture
highly enriched uranium, which can be used to make atomic bombs.
Tehran has categorically denied the claims.
WAR.WIRE
*****************************************************************
2 Korea Herald: Foreign minister resigns over U.S. policy flop
2004.01.15
Foreign Minister Yoon Young-kwan resigned yesterday days
after it came to light that some of his staff had criticized
President Roh Moo-hyun's policy toward the United States.
The presidential office did not disclose when a successor to
Yoon Young-Kwan would be named.
"President Roh has accepted the resignation tendered by Foreign
Minister Yoon," Roh's personnel adviser Jeong Chan-yong said in
a news briefing.
Yoon's resignation came one day after Roh reprimanded some
diplomats for criticism of his U.S. policy. He said then he
would make changes.
Jeong indicated the president might have accepted Yoon's
resignation as he blames him for failing to supervise properly
his ministry officials.
"Foreign Ministry officials have failed to effectively implement
the independent foreign policy direction of the Participatory
Government," Jeong said.
The presidential adviser also chastised ministry officials for
leaking classified information on the government's U.S.
diplomacy to news media.
"Furthermore, they also swayed the discipline in the officialdom
by leaking the information on the probe of the incident by
Cheong Wa Dae," Jeong said.
*****************************************************************
3 BBC: North Korea sends nuclear warning
Last Updated: Thursday, 15 January, 2004
[North Korean spent nuclear fuel rods in Yongbyon]
The visitors were told all the spent rods had been reprocessed
Pyongyang has reportedly told the US to make a deal or North
Korea will spend the interim developing nuclear arms.
The warning was delivered to an unofficial team from the United
States visiting the Yongbyon nuclear reactor.
"Time is not on the US side," a member of team, Charles "Jack"
Pritchard, says he was told.
But the former US state department official said there was no way
to verify North Korean claims of advances in its "nuclear
deterrent".
Mr Pritchard's comments are the first lengthy public statements
by any of the five men who were taken to visit North Korea's
secret nuclear complex earlier this month.
While the visit was deemed "unofficial", team members have close
links to the US Government and the move was seen as significant.
The US believes North Korea is likely to have one or two nuclear
weapons and may be trying to develop more.
Washington, in concert with a number of Asian powers, wants to
stop the development of what Pyongyang calls a "deterrent".
They are also trying to prevent the possibility of weapons or
technology being exported.
Both sides say they want a solution but six-party talks launched
last year have not resumed.
Rods 'reprocessed'
The US experts spent several days in North Korea and visited
Yongbyon, the first foreigners to do so since UN inspectors were
thrown out and the plant reactivated over a year ago.
[Former US official Charles 'Jack' Pritchard in Beijing] Charles
"Jack" Pritchard held official talks with North Korea in 2002
Mr Pritchard said he was told by the Vice-Foreign Minister, Kim
Kye-gwan: "Time is not on the US side. Lapses of time will result
in quantitative and qualitative increases in our nuclear
deterrent."
Mr Pritchard, addressing an audience at the Brookings Institution
in Washington, said the team was shown an empty holding pond
where 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods had once been kept.
He said he was told all the rods had been reprocessed, allowing
scientists to make plutonium bombs, but said he had no way to
verify the claims.
Other members of the team, such as the former head of the US
nuclear laboratory at Los Alamos, might be able to make better
technical assessments, he said.
Mr Pritchard, part of an official state department visit to
Pyongyang in October 2002, said he also still believed US
intelligence that North Korea had a second nuclear programme
involving enriched uranium, though his hosts told him that was
not true.
*****************************************************************
4 Korea Herald: [EDITORIAL]Foreign minister's resignation
2004.01.16
President Roh's decision to accept Foreign Minister Yoon
Young-kwan's resignation in connection with the reportedly
challenging remarks made by some of his aides about the
president's U.S. policy looks emotional and amateurish at best.
The president has created more problems overnight by letting his
top diplomat go, instead of just ending the controversy
surrounding the discord among Foreign Ministry officials and the
National Security Council.
Roh himself made an inappropriate statement about the allegedly
teetering coordination between the two institutions during his
New Year news conference Wednesday. He said he would reshuffle
those officials at the Foreign Ministry to discipline them for
"leaking information in an attempt to reverse the president's
policy toward the United States and making inappropriate and
intolerable remarks about his policy."
Instead of accusing them in public, the president should have
tried to reduce differences between the officials in the
diplomatic service and his advisors at the NSC. He should have
made efforts to address the disputes among the so-called
"pro-American" career diplomats and the "independent-minded"
presidential advisors, before their conflicting positions
developed into such a serious issue as to derail the nation's
foreign policy.
The president revealed his emotion when he was asked to comment
about the disputes during his news conference; this was not
becoming of the nation's top leader. His statement that "the
president is elected with a mandate to push his own policy and
the bureaucrats are obliged to support him" left room for debate
on the presidential mandate and the obligations of the
bureaucracy.
Instead, the president could have responded more maturely by
discussing the reason why there were wide gaps between the views
of the career foreign service officials and his advisors, who are
mostly young academics. Removing the foreign minister the next
day was a rash move that shocked many people. Now the
presidential office has to tell the nation exactly what happened
and who said what to whom to compel the president to make such a
decision.
Frequent changes of diplomats, not to mention the foreign
minister, do not help the foreign relations of a small country
like Korea. Moreover, this is not the time to replace the top
diplomat, given the paramount issues at hand, including North
Korea's nuclear arms and volatile regional politics. The
president will have to be extraordinarily careful in appointing
his next foreign minister and must keep in mind that the world is
watching his next move.
*****************************************************************
5 Las Vegas SUN: Ensign says he won't vote to stop energy filibuster
By Launce Rake
LAS VEGAS SUN
Sen. John Ensign will not support a vote to end a promised
filibuster on the Energy Bill, a blow to Republican efforts to
pass the controversial bill.
A group of environmentalists said they met with Nevada's
Republican senator Tuesday and Ensign said he would support them
in their effort to keep the filibuster alive. And Ensign's
spokesman confirmed to the Sun late Tuesday that Ensign would not
vote to kill the filibuster.
In November, Ensign had voted in a motion called cloture to end
the filibuster, although he had promised to vote against the
final bill.
Republicans have enough votes in the both the House and Senate
to pass the bill. However, the filibuster, conducted by among
others Sen. Harry Reid, Ensign's Democratic opposite number, kept
the bill from the floor, and the bill's backers failed to end the
filibuster by two votes.
The filibuster killed the bill in the Senate, but Republican
congressional leaders have vowed to return to the measure early
this year.
Supporters, including Reps. Jon Porter and Jim Gibbons, both
Nevada Republicans, argue that the bill promotes alternative
energy development, especially in states such as Nevada that have
an abundance of potential renewable energy from geothermal or
solar sources.
Environmentalists have sharply criticized the bill as a
pork-laden measure, created behind closed doors by Vice President
Dick Cheney and industry executives, heavy with subsidies for
petrochemical concerns and the nuclear energy industry.
Development of subsidized nuclear energy would make the Yucca
Mountain nuclear waste dump more likely, environmentalists in
Nevada fear.
Three Sierra Club and a National Wildlife Federation activists
met with Ensign. They reported that the senator said he would
oppose a motion for cloture and would support any legislative
strategies to defeat the bill.
"I definitely feel we got a strong commitment from Senator
Ensign today," said J.J. Straight, a Sierra Club conservation
organizer working in Las Vegas. "We feel he really is concerned
and we applaud the commitment he made today to Nevada."
Straight said he cited his concerns as a fiscal conservative for
the bill and its support for ethanol production as well as its
support for the nuclear industry.
Jack Finn, Ensign's spokesman, said the senator told the Bush
administration he would give them one vote for cloture, one time,
during November's debate.
"From now on he is going to oppose the Energy Bill in any way he
can, including the vote for cloture," Finn said.
He said Ensign has not taken heat from the Republican leadership
for the stance.
"He is well known among members of leadership for voting his
conscience."
*****************************************************************
6 Austin Chronicle: Politics: Nuclear Posturing
HOME: JANUARY 16, 2004: NEWS: NUCLEAR POSTURING
BY MICHAEL KING
The Bush administration's "Nuclear Posture Review," a
Defense Department analysis of the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal
incorporated into a proposal for congressional funding, was
officially released in January 2002, when it was presented to
Congress. Attention has focused on the review's call for
"tactical" nuclear weapons, sometimes called "mininukes" or
"bunker-busters" -- but in doing so, the document also addresses
"production infrastructure," including the planning for
additional nuclear testing. A few excerpts follow; a more
complete version and other related information are available at
the Web site of the Western States Legal Foundation, which
monitors nuclear policy: www.wslfweb.org/nukes/npr.htm.
The Current U.S. Nuclear Warhead Infrastructure:
Underinvestment in the infrastructure -- in particular the
production complex -- has increased the risks that if
substantial problems in the stockpile are discovered, future
options to refurbish or replace existing designs will be
limited. For example, although an interim pit production
capability will be established later in this decade, no current
capability exists to build and certify plutonium pits, certain
secondary components, or complete warheads. ...
The need is clear for a revitalized nuclear weapons complex
that will: ... be able, if directed, to design, develop,
manufacture, and certify new warheads in response to new
national requirements; and maintain readiness to resume
underground nuclear testing if required.
Restoring Production Infrastructure
Warhead Assembly and Disassembly: ... Plans are under way to
expand the capacity and capability of the Pantex Plant to meet
the planned workload for dismantlement and remanufacturing of
existing weapons. ...
Uranium Operations: At least seven to eight years of effort
will be required to restore the capability to produce a complete
nuclear weapon secondary at the Y-12 Plant in Tennessee. ...
Plans are under way to expand the capacity and capability of the
Y-12 Plant to meet the planned workload for replacing warhead
secondaries, and other uranium components. ...
Plutonium Operations: One glaring shortfall is the inability to
fabricate and certify weapon primaries, or so-called "pits."
Work is under way to establish an interim capability at Los
Alamos National Laboratory late in this decade to meet current
demand created by destructive surveillance testing on the W88
warhead. For the long term a new modern production facility will
be needed to deal with the large-scale replacement of components
and new production. ...
Other Component and Material Production: ... Tritium
production, halted since 1988, is programmed to resume in FY 03
with first deliveries to the stockpile scheduled for FY 06.
Additionally, warhead refurbishment plans require modern
facilities at Y-12's Special Materials Complex for manufacturing
unique materials.
National Nuclear Security Administration Initiatives for Nuclear
Weapons Programs
Advanced Concepts Initiative: ... There are several nuclear
weapon options that might provide important advantages for
enhancing the nation's deterrence posture: possible
modifications to existing weapons to provide additional yield
flexibility in the stockpile; improved earth penetrating weapons
to counter the increased use by potential adversaries of
hardened and deeply buried facilities; and warheads that reduce
collateral damage. ...
To further assess these and other nuclear weapons options in
connection with meeting new or emerging military requirements,
the NNSA will re-establish advanced warhead concepts teams at
each of the national laboratories and at headquarters in
Washington. This will provide unique opportunities to train our
next generation of weapon designers and engineers. DoD and NNSA
will also jointly review potential programs to provide nuclear
capabilities, and identify opportunities for further study,
including assessments of whether nuclear testing would be
required to field such warheads. ...
Limitations in the Present Nuclear Force
Today's nuclear arsenal continues to reflect its Cold War
origin, characterized by moderate delivery accuracy, limited
earth penetrator capability, high-yield warheads, silo and
sea-based ballistic missiles with multiple independent re-entry
vehicles, and limited retargeting capability. ...
New capabilities must be developed to defeat emerging threats
such as hard and deeply buried targets, to find and attack
mobile and relocatable targets, to defeat chemical or biological
agents, and to improve accuracy and limit collateral damage.
Development of these capabilities, to include extensive research
and timely fielding of new systems to address these challenges,
are imperative. ...
Copyright © 1995-2004 Austin Chronicle Corp. All rights
*****************************************************************
7 Austin Chronicle: Politics: Nukes Are Back!
HOME: JANUARY 16, 2004: NEWS: NUKES ARE BACK!
The Bush administration plans for the next (little) nuclear wars
BY WILLIAM M. ADLER
illustration by Jason Stout
1830 hours. All are in uniform: the military brass, their crew
cuts periscoping above their dress whites or blues or greens;
the retired military brass turned defense contractors, in dark
suits with American-flag lapel pins, pivoting around the three-
and four-star admirals and generals like so many schools of
fish; the astronaut in his royal-blue NASA jumpsuit; Miss
Nebraska, who teeters winningly, even with aplomb, between high
heels and a silver tiara. Several hundred conferees are mingling
and mixing over cocktails and hors d'oeuvres on the ground floor
of the Strategic Air &Space Museum, a monument to military
aviation on the Nebraska prairie, conveniently located (if
you're a cornfield) between Omaha and Lincoln. Across from the
two- and three-deep bar, tucked near the escalator well, a trio
hangs jazz wallpaper. Over at a corner cocktail table, the
wholesome (think young Kevin Costner), teetotaling Nebraskanaut
autographs 8-by-10 glossies. "Aim High!" he exhorts.
Welcome to Strategic Space 2003, a three-day Strangelove-in
devoted -- deeply, hopelessly devoted -- to touting the latest
and greatest innovations in space warfare. We're in Omaha, a
well-scrubbed town on the west bank of the Missouri River, the
fabled Heartland of America. Agribusiness remains front-page
news, particularly during the ongoing drought, but the biggest
cash crop is not corn or beef or soybeans; it's the military.
The largest employer is Offutt Air Force Base, 10 miles south of
town. Deep within Offutt, in 14,000 square feet of reinforced
steel and concrete, is the nerve center of the U.S. Strategic
Command, or StratCom, arguably the world's most important and
powerful military installation. StratCom, a co-host of the
conference, has long been the command-and-control center for the
U.S. military's nuclear-weapons capabilities. In 2002, as part
of a Defense Department reorganization, it also assumed
responsibilities for U.S. Space Command, giving StratCom control
over all U.S. strategic forces. Whether from land, air, sea, or,
as these 500 glad-handing conferees would have it, space, if the
United States launches a strategic attack, it will do so a
grenade's throw from the stage on which Miss Nebraska -- a
digital flag flapping in the digital breeze on the digital-video
screen behind her -- belts out "America the Beautiful."
The Pentagon reorganization signifies more than a promotion for
the StratCom commander, Adm. James O. Ellis Jr. It also
positions StratCom at the center of the Bush administration's
efforts to overhaul nuclear America. Those efforts center on
developing a new generation of "usable" nuclear weapons, a topic
about which I aspired to learn more during panel discussions on
"The Warfighter's Toolkit" and "From [Operation] Iraqi Freedom
to Tomorrow's Battlefield." One thing I already knew from the
opening reception. War planners not only are rethinking the
unthinkable -- how and when to use nuclear weapons -- they're
discussing it. Out loud. Over drinks and cheese balls.
Nukes First, Questions Later
Their discussions are based on the "Nuclear Posture Review,"
the blueprint for the Bush administration's overhaul of nuclear
America. The classified document (portions of which were leaked,
initially to the Los Angeles Times, and now reside online at
www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/npr.htm/) urges
a fundamental, radical shift from the principles of deterrence
and restraint that date to the early days of the Cold War, when
a superpower not named the United States also roamed the globe
with visions of empire. In August 1949, four years after Harry
Truman incinerated the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, the Soviet Union successfully tested its own atomic
bomb. So began the long-lived era under the Cold War cloud of
mutually assured destruction: We got nukes, you got nukes; let's
do nothing stupid. Nonproliferation treaties, bilateral and
multilateral, were signed; nuclear test bans implemented; arms
reductions agreed to. But the Soviet Union fell off the map in
1991, and a decade later, 19 men armed with boarding passes and
box cutters brought the U.S. to its knees.
Three months after the 9/11 attacks (although clearly in
preparation much earlier), the Bush administration delivered its
"Nuclear Posture Review" to Congress. The Pentagon-authored text
is couched in recommendations, but its tone and direction are
unmistakable. It buries alive all those quaint Cold War
holdovers -- diplomacy, arms-control treaties, test bans -- in
some figurative fallout shelter, never to be heard from again.
In their stead, war planners bellow and yearn for a doctrine
that strikes first and evades questions later. "The need is
clear," the posture review states, "for a revitalized nuclear
weapons complex that will be able ... if directed, to design,
develop, manufacture, and certify new warheads in response to
new national requirements."
Every president since Truman relegated the bomb to a category
unto itself, to be locked away unless the nation's very survival
were at stake. Not so George W. Bush. In the introduction to his
administration's "National Security Strategy to Combat Weapons
of Mass Destruction," Bush wrote that the U.S. "will continue to
make it clear that it reserves the right to respond with
overwhelming force -- including potentially nuclear weapons --
to the use of WMD against the United States, our forces abroad,
and friends and allies" (emphasis added).
In addition to 9/11, two major factors account for the nuclear
revival. One is the stream of intelligence indicating that the
remaining axis of evildoers (Iran, North Korea) as well as the
other Usual Suspects (Syria, Libya) are going deep -- building
and storing weapons of mass destruction in hard, underground
bunkers. Such facilities, the posture review claims, are
impervious to conventional weapons. At the top of the
weaponeers' wish list, then, are Robust Nuclear Earth
Penetrators, commonly known as "bunker-busters." These are
supposed to burrow where no conventional weapon can -- down,
down, down through hundreds of feet of hard rock tunnels and
reinforced concrete to the presumed command-and-control centers
of rogue leaders, and to their stashes of WMDs and ballistic
missiles. Only then would they explode, theoretically
annihilating only the targeted bunker. But there seems to be a
physics conundrum: A low-yield nuke will not burrow deep enough,
and a high-yield behemoth, say, anywhere from 100 kilotons
(almost five times the force of the Hiroshima bomb that
immediately killed 140,000 people) to a megaton, "would likely
shower the surrounding region with highly radioactive dust and
gas," Robert W. Nelson, a Princeton University physicist, writes
in a report for the Federation of American Scientists.
Call it a midlife crisis. When the U.S. nuclear stockpile looks
in the mirror, it sees a dowdy, obsolete 20th-century arsenal in
need of a 21st-century face lift. That is the second factor
driving the administration toward proliferation. It gets no
respect; rogues pay the once fearsome stockpile no mind. There
is no obvious flaw with the 2,000 warheads StratCom maintains on
hair-trigger alert, 15-minute launch time. Or with the other
10,000 intact warheads, or the 5,000 more in "strategic
reserve." It's just that they're big boppers: high-yield,
limited-precision, doomsday nukes that can reduce Moscow to
mincemeat but couldn't hit the broad side of a bunker in broad
daylight. "If we want to deter an opponent from attacking, the
opponent must actually believe our threats to some degree,"
Keith B. Payne, an architect of the Bush nuclear blueprint, has
written.
Get 'Em by the Gross
So is smaller better, or at least a more credible deterrent?
Teetotaling Nebraskanaut Clayton C. Anderson autographs 8-by-10
glossies with "Aim High!"
"The world of nuclear weapons policy is kind of Alice in
Wonderland," says Jay Coghlan, director of Nuclear Watch of New
Mexico. "In many ways, the lower the yield of the weapon, the
more dangerous the weapon, because it is more likely to be
used." That's where mininukes come in. A one-kiloton mininuke (a
kiloton equals 1,000 tons of TNT) may sound cuddly -- and it is
relatively low-yield: about one-13th the force of the Hiroshima
bomb. But a one-kiloton warhead would generate a crater roughly
the size of the Ground Zero site where the World Trade Center
used to stand, and would spew a million cubic feet of
radioactive fallout, estimates Daryl G. Kimball, executive
director of the nonprofit Arms Control Association.
The "Nuclear Posture Review" gives short shrift to such
drawbacks. It advertises mininukes (defined as no more than five
kilotons) as precision weapons capable of "surgical strikes"
that would reduce "collateral damage" from blast, heat, and
radiation. A grab bag of uses is envisioned: in retaliation for
the use of nuclear weapons, or as reprisal against non-nuclear
states for biological or chemical weapons, or, vaguely, "in the
event of surprising military developments." That sort of hazy
language pervades the document. It may be helpful in preparing
for "immediate, potential, or unexpected" contingencies, but
critics say it also is a ploy that affords war planners and
weapons designers great latitude to take out of it whatever they
wish. "It's kind of like a fundamentalist reading the Bible,"
says Greg Mello, director of the Los Alamos Study Group, a
watchdog organization.
In one respect, however, the posture review is unambiguous: It
considers the new generation of nukes potential weapons of first
resort. Not only does that lower the threshold for using them,
it blurs the line between nuclear and conventional weapons. And
it vaporizes the international principle, based on nearly 60
years of diplomacy, law, practicality, and morality, that
nuclear weapons are exponentially more lethal. "A nuclear weapon
is a unique entity," says Jon Wolfsthal, deputy director of the
Non-Proliferation Project of the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace. "There is no such thing as a tactical
nuclear weapon in the eyes of 99 percent of the world's
population."
The problem for nonproliferation advocates and the rest of the
world is that the U.S. Congress is at the forefront of the other
1%. Despite a summer and fall of hemming and hawing on both
sides of the aisle, just before Thanksgiving Congress passed two
spending bills that granted virtually every new nuclear weapon
program Bush asked for (with some token budget reductions). This
includes $7.5 million to study bunker-busters; $6 million to
research mininukes (last spring, Congress repealed a 10-year-old
ban on such research); $24.9 million to expedite plans for the
resumption of underground nuclear testing in Nevada (there have
been no such tests since the first President Bush declared a
moratorium in 1992); and $10.8 million to develop the Modern Pit
Facility -- fedspeak for a new nuclear bomb factory. (Pantex,
near Amarillo, is one of five sites under consideration for that
huge slab of atomic pork. See "Braying for Plutonium," July 11,
2003.)
During Senate debate on a Democratic amendment to slash funding
for nuclear weapons research and development, Dianne Feinstein,
D-Calif., reminded her colleagues that next year the U.S. will
spend "more on our military than all of the other 191 nations on
the planet combined." She let that astounding statement sink in,
and then added: "If we can't protect ourselves without thinking
about nuclear weapons, who can?"
The senator's question cuts to the heart of the concern over
the administration's nuclear ambitions. It also demands a
further one: By what moral authority can the U.S. expect to stop
international proliferation even as it readies record spending
-- $6.38 billion in the 2004 fiscal year -- for core nuclear
weapons research, development, and production programs? As Rep.
Ed Markey, D-Mass., quipped during House debate last spring on
nuclear weapons spending, "We are like those that would preach
temperance from a barstool."
Feinstein and Markey, both veteran members of Congress, surely
understand that questions of reckless military spending,
immorality, and hypocrisy are irrelevant on Capitol Hill during
times of war, even manufactured war. So how about one question
more: Do George Bush's nuclear ambitions make for a safer, more
secure nation and world?
GLOBAL MILITARY spending comparisons 2002
* Other NATO includes Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark,
Greece, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland,
Portugal, Spain, and Turkey.
Sources: The Military Balance 2003-2004, International Institute
for Strategic Studies, 2003. Budget of the United States
Government, FY 2004, Office of Management and Budget. Center for
Defense Information.
Staying on Message
I figured by now I knew what I'd hear from the president's
oft-quoted proponents and critics, some of whom I spoke with,
too. But as the country marches inexorably toward building
"usable" nukes, I wondered what the uniformed military -- the
front-line folks who would actually use the weapons -- might be
thinking. And so it came to be that StratCom commander Adm.
James Ellis' hand, which normally rests on the nation's nuclear
button, is squeezing mine.
We are standing in the lobby of the Embassy Suites in downtown
Omaha, where the space-cowboy conferees have just emerged from
rousing panels on ballistic missile defense and
defense-contractor prognostications on the future of strategic
space. It's nearly lunchtime on the final day of the confab,
cheer is in the air, and yet this embedded reporter, after three
days of exchanging pleasantries about "full-spectrum
domination," "global-strike capability," "flight-kill vehicles,"
"blue force tracking," and so on, cannot escape the voice of
George C. Scott's nuke-lovin' Gen. Buck Turgidson in the 1964
film Dr. Strangelove. "Mr. President," he began, briefing his
commander in chief on the benefits of nuclear war, "I'm not
saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say ... no more
than 10 to 20 million killed, tops."
Just as the admiral and I get reacquainted (we'd said hello at
the opening-night reception) a Navy captain who keeps a close
eye on the admiral pulls him away. Ellis is the luncheon
speaker, and even though I'll be late for my flight and am ripe
to kiss Omaha goodbye, I want another crack at him, one of the
few people on the planet whose job description includes the
capability to destroy it.
Following Ellis' platitude-larded speech, a military flack
hustles me and several fellow scribes to a small room for a
brief "press availability" with the admiral. Now, finally, was
my chance. A local reporter beats me to the punch, asking Ellis
if he sees mininukes as part of the solution to fighting
terrorism. He ducks. "This conference is not about the 'Nuclear
Posture Review,'" he says. "I'd like to stay on message here."
He calls on a reporter from a defense industry publication, who
lobs a softball. I raise my hand again, but the admiral appears
not to notice. After another question or two, the watchful Navy
captain thanks us for coming. And then, poof, Adm. Ellis is
whisked away, returned, no doubt, to his secure, underground
bunker. [end story]
Copyright © 1995-2004 Austin Chronicle Corp. All rights
*****************************************************************
8 NUCLEAR TREATIES by Carol Wolman; Libya ratifies Comprehensive
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:41:05 -0800
Dear Friends,
Today's news item, Libya ratifies Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty- (see
article below) has led me to reflect on the recent history of international
nuclear arms control treaties.
The opening shot in the neocons' coup d'etat came in October 1999, when the
US Senate failed to muster 67 votes for ratification of the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). President Clinton was in favor of ratification,
and knew that the necessary 2/3 majority was not available. He kept the
question on the shelf for most of his tenure. But a sneak attack by a
group of Repugs brought it to the Senate floor with only 3 days' debate
before the vote. The CTBT's supporters had no time to rally or educate the
public.
A major thrust of the Bush administration is to make nuclear weapons
usable, as set forth in the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) of
2002. Mininukes and bunker busters are being developed, and the doctrine
of pre-emptive strikes, potentially including nuclear strikes, has been put
into force, in Iraq.
The NPR violates Article VI of the NonProliferation Treaty (NPT), which
pledges all 177 signers to work toward nuclear disarmament. Article VI was
upheld "unconditionally" at the NPT Review conference of May 2000, in a
document signed by the US.
During the post 9-11 confusion, in December 2001, the Bush administration
formally withdrew from another key treaty, the AntiBallistic Missile (ABM)
Treaty, signed by the two nuclear superpowers in 1972. The ABM Treaty
forbade the development of a missile defense and countermeasures, such as
MIRV's, and successfully capped the nuclear arms race for 30 years.
The fight to save the ABM Treaty started during the campaign of 2000, when
it became clear that a prime objective of the Bush junta was to scuttle the
treaty, in order to provide new opportunities for the then-languishing
military/industrial complex. Both Bush and Gore carefully avoided the
subject of the ABM treaty during their debates, but as soon as he took
office, Bush proclaimed his intention of withdrawing.
The peace community rallied to save the treaty, and lobbied vigorously. In
the first week of September, 2001, the Senate Armed Services Committee,
then chaired by Democrat Carl Levin, attached a rider to the Appropriations
bill, forbidding expenditures to any program which violated the ABM treaty,
even if the treaty was no longer in force. After 9-11, of course, this
rider was withdrawn.
The treaty was supposedly replaced with a new nuclear disarmament treaty
based on trust and friendship between Putin and Bush. Of course, Bush has
stabbed Putin in the back several times since then, and Putin is rearming
Russia. All a friendly understanding between businessmen.
The only treaties left are the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which the US is
planning to violate with Star Wars, and the NonProliferation Treaty, (NPT),
which the US is already violating by developing mininukes. Hypocritically,
the US is vigilant and belligerent about violations by other countries,
such as North Korea, Iran, and Iraq.
The international treaty structure, an honored agreement among sometimes
hostile nations, has prevented thermonuclear war since 1945. Bush is
replacing treaties with a Mordor scenario in which power and brutality,
issuing forth from a fortified wasteland, conquer the earth. Unlike Middle
Earth, planet earth has at least one other nuclear superpower and many
other nuclearized nations.
The only Democratic candidate who recognizes these realities is Dennis
Kucinich. He led 30 Representatives into filing suit in Federal court to
save the ABM treaty, by declaring that the Executive could not withdraw
from a Congressionally ratified treaty without a vote of Congress.
Dennis is the only candidate to call for a cut in the Pentagon budget, and
for reinstatement of the treaty structure. This MUST be done, before
nuclear proliferation spins out of control. Remember Hiroshima!
We the people are nuclear hostages to all the hawks and vultures that are
wrecking our world. Americans MUST reclaim America and stop this nuclear
madness, before it is too late. Carol Wolman
You made us the reproach of our neighbors,
the mockery and the scorn of those around us.
You made us a byword among the nations,
a laughingstock among the peoples.
Psalm 44: 14-15
http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/011504.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Libya-Nuclear.html
VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- In a new signal that Libya
is serious about renouncing its weapons of mass
destruction, U.N. officials said Wednesday the
North African country has ratified the nuclear
test ban treaty.
Libya's nuclear program was far from producing a
weapon and the treaty is 12 nations short of the
44 ratifications needed for it to enter into
force. Still, the announcement by the U.N. agency
overseeing the agreement appeared to be a further
sign of commitment by Libyan leader Moammar
Gadhafi to give up nuclear weapons ambitions...
*****************************************************************
9 deepikaglobal: Russia delivered 200 tons of uranium to US over 10 years
Moscow, Jan 14 (UNI)
Russia has delivered to the United States more than 200 tons of
weapons-grade highly enriched uranium over the past ten years
since the signing of a contract between the two countries. The
agreement was concluded on January 14, 1994 by the US Enrichment
Corporation (USEC) and the Russian foreign trade company,
Tekhsnabexport for the implementation of the agreement, signed
between the governments of the two countries, on the use of
highly enriched uranium extracted from nuclear weapons, Ria
Novosti reported today.
The contract stipulates the delivery of low-enriched uranium
(NOU) produced at the enterprises of the Russian Atomic Energy
Ministry from the highly enriched uranium (VOU). In the United
States, the low-enriched uranium is being used as fuel for atomic
power plants. According to the Russian company, at present about
10 per cent of energy is being generated in the United States by
burning fuel on the basis of the Russian NOU. Russia has received
more than 4 billion dollar under this contract, the Russian news
agency said.
Last year, the sum from the NOU realisation made up about 10 per
cent of all planned non-tax Russian budget revenues. These means
are being used to finance the programmes of enhancing the
security of the Russian atomic power plants, conversion of
defence production processes and ecological purification of
impure territories. In addition, according to the company's data,
numerous jobs in the Russian atomic energy industry and in the
related industries, which ensure the necessary infrastructure for
the fulfillment of the contract, have been created and are being
maintained. The United States, according to the terms of this
contract, returned to Russia almost 25,000 tons of natural
uranium over the past ten years.
This can ensure the raw materials requirements of the Russian
atomic energy industry in the course of several years. Russia
should deliver to the USA 500 tons of VOU in compliance with this
contract, signed 20 years ago.
© Copyright DeepikaGlobal.com 1997-2003.
*****************************************************************
10 SD Union-Trib: Onofre reactor barred from Argentine waters
SignOnSanDiego.com:
By Matthew T. Hall
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
January 15, 2004
In the first sign of South American resistance to plans to tow
San Onofre's dismantled nuclear reactor around the continent to
South Carolina, a judge in Argentina has banned the U.S. barge
from entering its territorial waters.
Agence France-Presse reported yesterday that the judge imposed
the ban when deciding in favor of a lawsuit brought by the state
government of Chubut in southern Argentina.
The decision won't halt plans to ship the retired reactor from
the San Onofre nuclear power plant to the only U.S. burial site
that will take the waste, said Ray Golden, a spokesman for plant
operator Southern California Edison.
Richard Stratford, the director of the Office of Nuclear Energy
Affairs for the State Department, agreed.
"At the moment, I don't see any particular effect because my
understanding is they will be staying outside territorial
waters," Stratford said.
Both men said they knew about the ban only through the news wire
report.
Tom Clements, a spokesman for Greenpeace International, which
has campaigned against disposal plans for the reactor for
months, said he is unaware of similar bans attempted so far by
other South American governments.
Golden said Edison plans to tug the barge in waters more than
200 miles from most of the South American coast. A second tug
would travel with the first and head into ports for supplies or
in cases of emergency.
Another Edison spokesman said last week that the 770-ton reactor
may be stored on site indefinitely if it is not moved 15 miles
from the plant to a Camp Pendleton boat basin by a March
deadline meant to protect the nesting periods of shorebirds.
The San Onofre reactor was shut down in 1992, emptied of its
fuel and most radioactive internal components, then packed in
steel and concrete for shipment to Barnwell, S.C.
Edison still operates two nuclear reactors in northern San Diego
County. It chose a route around South America for disposal of
its Unit 1 reactor when liability issues prevented shipment east
by rail. The reactor's weight precludes passage through the
Panama Canal.
Matthew Hall: (760) 476-8234; matthew.hall@uniontrib.com
© Copyright 2004 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.
*****************************************************************
11 News-Mesenger: NRC to hold meeting to discuss D-B -
thenews-messenger.com
Thursday, January 15, 2004
News-Messenger reports
OAK HARBOR -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Davis-Besse
oversight panel will meet with FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co.
officials at 6 p.m. Wednesday in the Oak Harbor High auditorium,
11661 W. Ohio 163, to review recent activities at the Davis-Besse
Nuclear Power Station.
The plant, operated by FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co., has
been shut down since Feb. 16, 2002, as the result of corrosion
damage to its reactor vessel head.
The public can observe the business portion of the meeting and
will have an opportunity to make comments and ask questions of
the NRC staff before the meeting is adjourned.
The meeting will include a discussion by FirstEnergy officials on
activities at Davis-Besse and a presentation of the preliminary
findings of a follow-up NRC inspection looking at safety culture
issues at the plant.
The transcripts of the oversight panel meeting will be posted in
several weeks on the NRC's Web site Select Davis-Besse from the
Key Topics menu.
The NRC oversight panel includes NRC management and staff from
its Region III office in Lisle, Ill.; the NRC Headquarters office
in Rockville, Md.; and the NRC Resident Inspector Office at the
Davis-Besse site.
Documents on the Davis-Besse corrosion issue, including further
details on NRC's oversight panel activities, are posted on the
NRC's Web site.
Originally published Thursday, January 15, 2004
Contact Us | Subscribe | Place an ad Copyright ©2004
The News-Messenger. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
12 ITAR-TASS: Power unit of Balakovo NPS shut down due to malfunction
[ITAR-TASS News Agency of Russia]
15.01.2004, 14.58
MOSCOW, January 15 (Itar-Tass) - Power Unit 4 of the Balakovo
nuclear power station (BNPS) in Saratov region was shut down by
automatic process safety devices on Thursday morning, an
official at the press center of the Rosenergoatom company has
told Itar-Tass.
The company spokesman said, "The said power unit was shut down
in keeping with the safety rules for the operation of Russia's
nuclear power stations". Following the rectification of the
defect, "the nature of which is being ascertained by a special
commission set up at the BNPS, the power unit will resume
operation in about 24 hours' time," he specified.
"For the duration of the shutdown period, electric power to the
towns and settlements of the Privolzhsky District is being
supplied by the region's stand-by power facilities. At present,
the other three operating power units of the BNPS have an
aggregate generating power of 3,080 megawatts," the company
official pointed out. "The radiological situation in the
observation zone and in the BNPS area has remained unchanged,"
he said.
© ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy,
*****************************************************************
13 SOFIA: World Energy Giants Eye Bulgarian N-Plant Belene
novinite.com
Friday 16 January 2004 Sofia Morning News
Top news: 15 January 2004, Thursday.
Chiefs of four world-leading energy companies enquired about
opportunities for the construction of Bulgarian second nuclear
plant in Belene at a meeting with Prime Minister Simeon
Saxe-Coburg.
Presidents and vice-presidents of Atomic Energy of Canada,
Italian Ansaldo Nuclear and two Japanese energy companies,
Hitachi Corp. and Itochu Corp., attended the meeting.
Canadian state company Atomic Energy of Canada (AECL) is one of
the five companies, which confirmed their interest officially in
the construction of the new Nuclear Power Plant Belene last year.
Its principal bid includes the application of Canadian technology
CANDU.
Along with Russian Atomstroyexport, American Westinghouse, French
Framatom, Czech Skoda, the company submitted a principal bid for
completing construction works on the Belene N-plant site.
On Dec 19, 2002 Bulgarian government lifted the ban on the
completion of Bulgaria's second nuclear plant. The project for
its construction was shelved in 1992 after pressure from
environmentalists.
All Rights Reserved © Novinite Ltd., 2001-2004 - Copyright
Novinite.com (thebulgariannews.com
*****************************************************************
14 NRC: NRC Oversight Panel to Meet on January 21 with Davis-Besse Officials in Oak Harbor
News Release - Region III - 2004-00
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs, Region III
No. III-04-004 January 14, 2004
CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663
Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov
will meet with FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. officials on
Wednesday, January 21, to review recent activities at the
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station.
The plant, operated by FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company
near Oak Harbor, Ohio, has been shut down since February 16,
2002, as a result of corrosion damage to its reactor vessel
head.
The meeting will be held at 6 p.m. in the Oak Harbor High School
Auditorium, 11661 West State Route 163, in Oak Harbor. The
public is invited to observe the business portion of the meeting
and will have an opportunity to make comments and ask questions
of the NRC staff before the meeting is adjourned.
The meeting will include a discussion by FirstEnergy officials
on activities at Davis-Besse and a presentation of the
preliminary findings of a followup NRC inspection looking at
safety culture issues at the plant.
The transcripts of the oversight panel meeting will be posted in
several weeks on the NRCs web site - http://www.nrc.gov. Select
Davis-Besse from the Key Topics menu.
The NRC oversight panel includes NRC management and staff from
its Region III office in Lisle, Illinois; the NRC Headquarters
office in Rockville, Maryland; and the NRC Resident Inspector
Office at the Davis-Besse site.
Documents on the Davis-Besse corrosion issue, including further
details on NRCs oversight panel activities, are posted on the
NRCs web site.
Last revised Thursday, January 15, 2004
*****************************************************************
15 CBC - New Brunswick: Lepreau waits for gov't approval
WebPosted Jan 15 2004 09:36 AM EST
SAINT JOHN — NB Power has all the approvals it needs to go
ahead with the refurbishment of Point Lepreau except one from
the provincial government. This week the Canadian Nuclear Safety
Commission approved a $10-million expansion of Lepreau's
radioactive waste storage facility. NB Power says with proper
management, Point Lepreau can last until 2008 but after that it
will need to be refurbished or shutdown. Rod White, vice
president of nuclear power for NB power, says refurbishment is
the best option even though it will cost more than $900-million.
But the provincial government says it wants to find another
investor to pay part of the $900-million cost. Energy Minister
Bruce Fitch says they are talking with various investors
including Atomic Energy of Canada and Bruce Power which runs a
nuclear plant in Ontario. "We've been talking to various
institutions that may be interested in that. We want to make
sure that the best deal is reached, in fact refurbishment is the
option of choice." Fitch says they won't rush into a decision.
But Rod White says they can't wait much longer for that investor
to appear. "The contracts to do the work with Atomic Energy of
Canada Limited to achieve 2008 need to be formally committed to
them by October 2004. "
+ From Sept. 27, 2002: AECL president makes pitch for Point
Lepreau
nb.cbc.ca
Copyright CBC 2004All rights reserved | Privacy
*****************************************************************
16 NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
FR Doc 04-868
[Federal Register: January 15, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 10)]
[Notices] [Page 2364-2365] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr15ja04-87]
Comment Request AGENCY: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC). ACTION: Notice of pending NRC action to submit an
information collection request to OMB and solicitation of public
comment.
SUMMARY: The NRC is preparing a submittal to OMB for review of
continued approval of information collections under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35). Information pertaining to the requirement to be
submitted: 1. The title of the information collection: State
Agreements Program, as authorized by Section 274(b) of the Atomic
Energy Act.
2. Current OMB approval number: 3150-0029. 3. How often the
collection is required: One time or as needed.
4. Who is required or asked to report: Thirty-three Agreement
States whose governors have signed Section 274(b) Agreements with
NRC.
5. The number of annual respondents: 33. 6. The number of hours
needed annually to complete the requirement or request: 1,035
(7.5 hours per response). 7. Abstract: Agreement States are asked
on a one-time or as-needed basis, e.g., to respond to a specific
incident, to gather information on licensing and inspection
practices and other technical statistical information. The
results of such information requests, which are
[[Page 2365]] authorized under Section 274(b) of the Atomic
Energy Act, are utilized in part by NRC in preparing responses to
Congressional inquiries. Agreement State comments are also
solicited in the areas of proposed procedure and policy
development.
Submit, by March 15, 2004, comments that address the following
questions: 1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary
for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the
information have practical utility? 2. Is the burden estimate
accurate? 3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected? 4. How can the burden
of the information collection be minimized, including the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology? A copy of the draft supporting statement may be
viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White
Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville,
Maryland 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC
worldwide Web site
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html. The
document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days
after the signature date of this notice.
Comments and questions about the information collection
requirements may be directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, Brenda
Jo Shelton, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, T-5 F52,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at (301) 415-7233, or by
Internet electronic mail to INFOCOLLECTS@NRC.GOV. Dated at
Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of January 2004.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Brenda Jo Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 04-868 Filed 1-14-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
17 Guardian Unlimited: Source of Rotterdam
Thursday January 15, 2004 10:31 PM
By TOBY STERLING
Associated Press Writer
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) - A recycling company found uranium
oxide - a radioactive material also known as yellowcake - in a
shipment of scrap steel it believes originally came from Iraq,
the company said Thursday.
Paul de Bruin, spokesman for Rotterdam-based Jewometaal, said
that the shipment was passed on last month from a Jordan metal
dealer who was unaware it contained any forbidden materials.
``I've dealt with this man for 15 years and he says he's sure it
came from Iraq,'' De Bruin said. He said Jewometaal had been
asked not to reveal the name of the Jordanian exporter while the
find was being investigated.
Nuclear experts say that although not highly radioactive,
uranium oxide can be processed into enriched uranium usable in a
nuclear weapon - but highly advanced technology is needed.
The Dutch Environment Ministry confirmed Thursday that
Jewometaal reported the unusual find on Dec. 16. After a
preliminary investigation by a company that specializes in
removing radioactive waste, the Dutch government decided to call
in the International Atomic Energy Agency to investigate
further.
A spokesman for the IAEA confirmed the agency had visited
Rotterdam on Wednesday but had no further comment.
Environment ministry spokesman Wim van der Weegen said scrap
metal companies in the Rotterdam port, which is Europe's
largest, report around 200 findings of radioactive material per
year, often from old hospital equipment or normal industrial
uses.
But the finding of an estimated two pounds of uranium oxide is
odd, Van der Weegen said.
Experts said that around 2 pounds of yellowcake, the amount
found, would not be useful for either a bomb or fuel.
Dr. Alan Ketering, a researcher at the nuclear research plant at
the University of Missouri-Columbia, said yellowcake contains
less than 1 percent of U-235 used in nuclear weapons. He said it
would need to be refined many times with sophisticated
technology before it was dangerous - and the amount found in
Rotterdam would not be nearly enough.
``Anybody can dig it up and purify it to make the yellow
stuff,'' he said. ``It's the separation of U-235 that people are
concerned about.''
However, he said there was no obvious non-nuclear industrial use
for yellowcake and it would be strange to find it in random
scrap metal.
The material was found in a small steel industrial container
apparently used to connect pipes or electrical wires,
Environment Ministry spokesman Van der Weegen said.
He said it wasn't yet known where the yellowcake originated.
``It could be from anywhere in the world,'' Van der Weegen said.
After testing, the material was shipped to a nuclear waste plant
in the Netherlands.
Jordan does not have any known nuclear power plants or weapons
and is a signatory to the nuclear test ban treaty.
President Bush came under heavy criticism last year when he
asserted in his State of the Union address that Iraq was
shopping in Africa for uranium yellowcake - intelligence that
turned out to be based on forged documents.
The original suspicions apparently came from a British dossier
and Britain's Foreign Office continued to maintain Iraq was
trying to buy uranium in Niger, although no evidence was
offered.
Last year, the United States agreed to pay $3.4 million to
install radioactivity detectors in Rotterdam to scan a fraction
of the 6 million containers that pass through it annually for
hidden radioactive material.
However, scrap metal companies are already outfitted with
detectors, and Jewometaal found the radioactive material with
its own equipment.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
Guardian Newspapers Limited
*****************************************************************
18 ic Berkshire: Incinerators will create 'hell on earth' say GPs
Jan 15 2004
By Sam Matthews
NEARLY half of all doctors in the area say the approval to build
two new waste incinerators in Colnbrook will create 'hell on
earth' for thousands of people.
A group of 25 GPs has written to the Environment Agency which
gave Grundon the green light for a Waste Management facility and
a clinical waste incinerator last week.
The doctors are concerned that the 'ill-considered' plan for the
£120 million facility will be a 'death sentence' for many.
The letter, signed by all 25 doctors, states: "We believe
locating these incinerators in this area is ill-considered and
we strongly oppose any measure that leads to loss of life."
The doctors express their dismay that such a large incinerator
is to be placed in an area where pollution is already over
government limits for particulates - poisonous particles
released by incineratorsand other emissions.
Spokesman for the GPs, Dr Jerry Thompson, who sits on the Slough
Primary Care Trust Good Practise Forum, added that people living
around the incinerator will be exposed to 'frightening risks'
including terminal diseases. "Simply breathing will become a
dangerous activity - in this way the Environment Agency are
creating hell on earth," he said.
The doctors believe an estimate by the Department of
Environment, Transport and the Regions in 2000 that the new
generation of incinerators would cause 350 deaths a year is
inaccurate.
Dr Thompson argues the death toll here will be higher as the
town has one of the highest rates of heart disease in the South
East and most deaths caused by incinerator emissions will be due
to heart disease.
He also accuses the EA of failing to answer vital questions from
the report submitted by Slough Primary Care Trust's as part of
the five year legal process. "The PCT has serious concerns about
the dangers of combinations of multiple pollutants on the
population, particularly when combined with radioactivity," he
said. "We have repeatedly pointed out the risks of incinerating
radioactive matter, a practise most other European countries
consider far too hazardous. The EA should be playing an
important role in reducing this appalling load of pollutants we
are exposed to and yet are allowing Grundon to belch out
hundreds of carcinogenic chemicals into the air we breathe."
Grundon maintains that the new plants will meet all emission
limits set by the European Union.
They hope the one that will burn clinical waste will be
completed by early 2005 and the domestic rubbish incinerator
will up and running by late 2006.
The Environment Agency was invited to comment but had not
responded at the time of going to press.
© owned by or licensed to Trinity Mirror Plc 2004
icBerkshireTM is a trade mark of Trinity Mirror Plc.
*****************************************************************
19 [NukeNet] Judges Appear To Side With Opponents Of Yucca Mt.
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:41:06 -0800
Videos: http://www.envirovideo.com
Mothersalert Home: http://www.mothersalert.org
The judges noted that the National Academy of
Sciences had estimated that the time of peak
release of radioactive materials would probably
come hundreds of thousands of years later.
"Ten thousand years is incorrect," Judge Harry T.
Edwards told a lawyer from the Justice Department,
saying the environmental agency had not obeyed
instructions by Congress to follow the academy's
advice in setting standards.
http://www.nytimes.com
http://snipurl.com/3uke
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/15/national/15NUKE.
html
Court Hears Arguments on Waste Site in Nevada
By MATTHEW L. WALD
Published: January 15, 2004
ASHINGTON, Jan. 14 - A majority of the judges on a
federal appeals court panel expressed skepticism
on Wednesday about a central element of the
government plan to bury radioactive waste in the
Nevada desert about 90 miles from Las Vegas.
In an unusual three-and-a-half-hour hearing that
combined 12 lawsuits and a web of issues, the
judges seemed to side with opponents of the site,
Yucca Mountain, on the issue of how long a
repository should have to retain the waste. Two of
the three judges of the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
indicated through their questions that the
Environmental Protection Agency had erred when it
said the Department of Energy would have to be
concerned with leakage for only the first 10,000
years.
Advertisement
The judges noted that the National Academy of
Sciences had estimated that the time of peak
release of radioactive materials would probably
come hundreds of thousands of years later.
"Ten thousand years is incorrect," Judge Harry T.
Edwards told a lawyer from the Justice Department,
saying the environmental agency had not obeyed
instructions by Congress to follow the academy's
advice in setting standards. The federal
government argued that 10,000 years was commonly
used in other kinds of hazardous waste disposal.
Judge David S. Tatel joined Judge Edwards in close
questioning of government lawyers on that point.
The third judge on the panel, Karen LeCraft
Henderson, asked few questions.
Opponents and proponents alike described this as
Yucca Mountain's big day in court. The
consolidated case being argued is the major legal
challenge to the government's multibillion-dollar,
multidecade plan for storing thousands of tons of
spent reactor fuel and nuclear bomb waste.
Hundreds of lawyers, government officials and
others began lining up before 6 a.m. for seats.
The parties said they hoped the judges would rule
later this year.
On Wednesday, the panel seemed to reject many
arguments brought by Yucca Mountain's opponents,
including the State of Nevada, the unwilling host
of the repository, and various environmental
groups.
Nevada contended that the federal government could
not force the repository on a state because it had
not proved its assertion that there was anything
special about the site's geology. The state said
the Energy Department's own plan said that the
natural geology of the site would play only a
minor role in its performance for 10,000 years,
because the metal casks planned by engineers would
take care of most of the problem.
Judges Tatel and Edwards suggested that the
fairness of the department's choice was now moot,
because its recommendation had been endorsed by
both houses of Congress in a bill signed by
President Bush in 2002.
A court could still find the site selection
unconstitutional, but the two judges seemed
unsympathetic. Rather, their questions indicated
that they sided with a government argument that it
had the right to build there because it owned the
land. The mountain is on the edge of the Nevada
Test Site, where the Atomic Energy Commission and
later the Energy Department exploded hundreds of
nuclear bombs.
Nevada argued that the laws Congress passed on
establishment of the repository required that the
geology of whatever site was chosen form the
primary barrier to the spread of radiation. The
rock is too permeable in Yucca Mountain's case,
they argued. One lawyer, Geoffrey Fettus of the
Natural Resources Defense Council, describing the
department's design as a "septic field" in which
radioactive particles, carried by rain water into
the underground water flows, would spread over a
broad area, diluted enough at the border to meet
radiation exposure standards.
But supporters of the project said that while
Congress made geology a criterion, it did not
specify that natural features had to be the most
important factor once the site was chosen.
The balance between the importance of the rock
versus the man-made features is linked to the
10,000-year question. If the department must prove
that the mountain will hold the radioactive
material for hundreds of thousands of years, it
will be difficult or impossible to argue that the
containers will remain intact.
Judge Edwards listened to a lawyer for Nevada,
Antonio Rossmann, argue that the standard should
be for 300,000 years or longer and then asked, "Is
this a backdoor way to say the focus should be on
geology, and not engineered barriers?"
"It's our front door," Mr. Rossmann replied.
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings at:
http://chrome.nocdirect.com/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
20 Las Vegas RJ: FEDERAL COURT HEARING: Yucca foes gain hope
Thursday, January 15, 2004
Judges pepper EPA with questions over radiation standard claims
By STEVE TETREAULT
STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., left, and Nevada Attorney General Brian
Sandoval on Wednesday leave a Washington, D.C., federal court
after a hearing on the Yucca Mountain Project.
Photo by ASSOCIATED PRESS
Nevada Special Attorney General Joe Egan leaves the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia on Wednesday after
arguing against the Yucca Mountain Project.
Photo by ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON -- Federal judges weighing Nevada challenges to the
Yucca Mountain Project reacted with skepticism Wednesday to some
of the state's key arguments, but suggested they might look
favorably on other claims that could slow the proposed
repository. In a long-awaited court hearing, two out of three
judges were frosty toward Nevada's claim that the government's
bid to bury nuclear waste in the state was in violation of the
U.S. Constitution.
The judges also foreclosed a direct challenge to President
Bush's designation of the site 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas
for the nuclear repository. They said that congressional approval
of the site in July 2002 made it a done deal that couldn't be
overturned in court.
At the same time, the judicial panel that convened at the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia signaled it might
support arguments that challenge the repository on other grounds.
Judges aimed sharp questions at whether health standards issued
by the Environmental Protection Agency would be sufficient to
protect Nevadans when radiation from the repository figures to be
at its peak hundreds of thousands of years in the future.
Additionally, Judge Harry T. Edwards said that Nevada should be
able to challenge Yucca Mountain environmental studies as part of
Nuclear Regulatory Commission's licensing hearings for the
project. State attorneys said it would give them more ammunition
in that venue.
"We were pleased with a lot of the things we saw," said Nevada
lead attorney Joe Egan.
But the 3 1/2-hour session signaled a probable mixed outcome for
Nevada and environmental organizations that filed lawsuits
against the government's efforts to develop the site. An appeal
to the U.S. Supreme Court is expected, no matter which side the
circuit court favors.
An Energy Department official and an attorney for the nuclear
power industry said they saw nothing out of the session that
would kill the Yucca project.
"Our decision-making process and the question of whether Yucca
Mountain was selected appropriately is obviously over," DOE
spokesman Joe Davis said, referring to likely rejection of the
site selection lawsuit.
Robert Bishop, general counsel for the Nuclear Energy Institute,
said he could envision the court upholding the repository or
ruling in a way that would cause undetermined delays.
"But I can't see any exercise of this court's jurisdiction that
would stop the project," he said.
On its highest profile case, the state's constitutional
argument, Nevada-hired expert Charles Cooper advanced the state
charge it was singled out for the repository without a reason
that could stand constitutional muster.
"Sovereign interests have been invaded by the federal government
for this material that no other state wants," Cooper said.
Edwards called it "an interesting argument," but one he believed
was a stretch when placed beside the powers granted the
government to manage federal property. The Yucca repository would
sit on Bureau of Land Management land.
"This concerns the use of federal property in a state," Judge
David Tatel said. "When you are talking about federal property,
it is not intuitive to consult the states."
The third judge, Karen LeCraft Henderson, did not offer a view.
Tatel said Nevada might have a case "if Congress just dropped
this stuff on Yucca Mountain." But he said extensive studies by
the Energy Department and action by Congress to sign off on the
site suggest otherwise. Egan later said, "When you advance a
theory that's new, you are assured one way or another it's going
to go to the Supreme Court." Attorney General Brian Sandoval said
Nevada leaders "would look very closely" at a Supreme Court
petition if the state's views are rejected at the appeals level.
On the site selection case, Edwards said Nevada could not
challenge Bush's pick because Congress passed a law setting it in
stone. The Senate completed the legislation on July 9, 2002, and
Bush enacted it on July 23 of that year.
"This is the most important issue here," Edwards said. "Once
they act, Congress can do what it wants to do, and they did it."
Edwards halted the proceedings shortly afterward, cutting off
Nevada's arguments on one of its cases that was tied in part to
the president's actions.
Edwards said the judges would decide that case based on written
briefs, "if we get to that." While Henderson asked a handful of
questions, Edwards and Tatel engaged attorneys throughout the
session. Encouraged by attorneys for Nevada and the Natural
Resources Defense Council, the two judges intensely questioned an
attorney for the Environmental Protection Agency, which had set a
10,000-year radiation standard for the repository despite a
National Academy of Sciences report ordered by Congress that
suggested radiation dangers will exist for a much longer period.
An Energy Department study pegged the period of peak radiation at
480,000 years in the future, attorneys said.
"The facts are incontrovertible. This is an EPA standard that
cannot stand review," said Antonio Rossman, a San Francisco
environmental attorney representing Nevada. "The National Academy
of Sciences determined there was no scientific basis to confine
it to 10,000 years."
The argument seemed to strike a chord with Edwards. "It's
astonishing what the agency did compared to what the NAS said,"
he said.
If the court ends up ruling against the EPA standards, Sandoval
said the Energy Department could face delays while new ones are
developed.
"It essentially would turn the program on its head because they
would have to start all over again," Sandoval said. "They cannot
prove those canisters will last more than 10,000 years." Energy
Department spokesman Davis said DOE will continue its
preparations to license a Yucca repository.
"For whatever standards the court might set, we are confident we
can meet them," Davis said. The Energy Department plans to submit
a license application by the end of December. Davis would not say
whether the project could be delayed if the court orders any
changes. Outside the court, Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said
the day "was obviously not a home run (for Nevada), but I think
we're going to win the EPA process and that will cause delay."
Berkley also said the judges "opened up a can of worms for us,"
by indicating that Nevada can mount challenges to the project's
environmental impact before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., cautioned against reading too much into
the judges' reaction to oral arguments considering they also will
be reviewing thousands of pages of legal documents before issuing
decisions.
"These cases will not be won or lost today," Porter said. "We
may not win every case but there were points made today that will
help us."
Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal
*****************************************************************
21 Tri-City Herald: Framatome plans waste lagoon, soil removal
This story was published Wednesday, January 14th, 2004
By John Stang Herald staff writer
A public comment period is under way for a Framatome ANP plan to
remove six waste lagoons and some contaminated soil.
Washington's Department of Ecology and Framatome have tentatively
agreed on a plan to begin removing the lagoons this year and
finish the project in 2006.
The 7-foot-deep lagoons range from 42,000 square feet to 91,200
square feet.
Framatome fabricates nuclear reactor fuel assemblies in a
northern Richland plant.
Until a few years ago, chemicals and radioactive uranium wastes
from the fabrication process were stored in lagoons at the plant.
Then the plant converted to a process that stores the wastes in
tanks, eliminating the need for the lagoons, which have been
around since the 1970s.
At times, the lagoons have leaked, resulting in their protective
liners being covered by more liners.
The company has been cleaning out the lagoons for the past couple
of years, said Sidney Koegler, Framatome's manager of waste
projects.
The upcoming work will include removing and disposing of the
lagoons' liners and leftover wastes. Then the contaminated soil
beneath the lagoons will be dug up. The soil and other
contaminated materials will be shipped to a specialized Utah
burial site operated by Envirocare.
The public comment period ends Feb. 12.
People with comments can mail them to Jeff Ayres, Washington
Department of Ecology, 1315 W. Fourth Ave., Kennewick, WA 99336.
His e-mail address is jayr461@ecy.wa.gov.
© 2004 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
22 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Forced to turn to the courts
Today: January 15, 2004 at 9:09:42 PST
LAS VEGAS SUN
Nevadans, for well over a decade now, have asked the federal
government to undertake a seemingly straightforward task: Take a
scientific, unbiased look at the Yucca Mountain project. If the
White House, Congress and federal agencies had actually given
Nevada a fair shake, there is no way they would have gone forward
with a risky plan to build a high-level nuclear waste dump in
Southern Nevada. In 2002, despite mounting evidence presented by
Nevada's congressional delegation that shipping and burying the
waste here poses extraordinary dangers to the public, Congress
approved President Bush's plan to open Yucca Mountain. Now
Nevada's hopes rest with the courts rejecting the plan or with
federal regulators denying the Energy Department a license to
operate a dump here. On Wednesday the U.S. Court of Appeals in
Washington, D.C., heard the state's legal challen ge.
On one of the issues raised by Nevada, that Congress used a
flawed process to designate Yucca Mountain, the state appeared to
have suffered a setback when the judges didn't express a
willingness to intervene. Meanwhile, the judges indicated it
would be up to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which will
either grant or deny a license for the Yucca Mountain project, to
determine whether the casks containing nuclear waste will be
strong enough to prevent corrosion by water flowing through Yucca
Mountain. Nevadans should be particularly heartened that the
judges were receptive to an important point raised by Nevada
involving radiation standards.
Two of the three judges questioned why the Environmental
Protection Agency decided that protective radiation standards at
Yucca Mountain were only required for the next 10,000 years.
After all, the judges noted, a report by the National Academy of
Science suggests the danger covers a much longer period of time.
The state contends that the project should be rejected because it
can't be demonstrated that the radiation standards can be met
300,000 years from now, which is when state officials say the
waste will be its most lethal.
The National Academy of Science's report is "absolutely clear
... that 10,000 years is incorrect," Judge Harry Edwards told an
attorney from the Justice Department. Moreover, Edwards and Judge
David Tatel asked, why would the EPA reject a recommendation from
the National Academy of Science when Congress explicitly required
the scientific body's report to be taken into account? "An agency
does not have the authority to do whatever it wants to do,"
Edwards said. The judge added that it was "really quite
astonishing what the agency did compared to what the National
Academy of Science said." The attorney who represented the
federal government, the Justice Department's Christopher Vaden,
contended that the 10,000-year standard was established following
policy and scientific considerations. But that's balderdash. The
10,000-year mark is arbitrary. It's a nice ro und number that the
Energy Department believes most Americans will feel secure about.
The fact that such a number was picke! d, instead of say 3,500
years, 17,500 years or even 300,000 years, suggests little
science went into the consideration.
Nevada's case still is a long shot: Getting a federal court to
overturn a federal agency's decision doesn't happen every day,
especially when 49 other states and their representatives in
Congress are happy that they won't be the nation's dumping
ground. And tough questions posed by judges, such as those on the
10,000-year limit, aren't always an indication of which way
they're leaning in a case. But it's still encouraging that a
federal institution, in this case the U.S. Court of Appeals,
actually put pointed questions to the federal government about
its refusal to comply with one of the nuclear-waste burial law's
principal requirements. What's sad is that Nevada, in
desperation, has had to turn to the courts for help because a
president and a majority of the members of Congress have
dismissed legitimate safety concerns about the shipping and
burial of 77, 000 tons of the deadliest waste known to man.
*****************************************************************
23 Las Vegas SUN: No knockout on Yucca
Today: January 15, 2004 at 11:25:56 PST
Nevada's hopes for definitive legal victory fade
By Suzanne Struglinski
WASHINGTON -- Nevada officials said this morning they believe a
federal appeals court will allow the Energy Department to pursue
a license to build the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.
A day after Nevada's legal challenge was heard in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the state's
attorneys said the three-judge panel appeared to be leaning
toward letting the Energy Department move forward but at the
same time laid legal groundwork that could eventually scuttle
the project.
Nevada officials said they believe they won and lost during the
3 1/2- hour hearing, the state's first full legal challenge
against the Yucca Mountain dump. It's unclear how and when the
judges will rule, although a ruling is expected sometime this
year.
Judging from the questions asked in court, Nevada officials
said the judges seemed to dismiss Nevada's constitutional
challenge and arguments against the siting of the project, which
could have been a knockout blow.
But Nevada officials believe they have some winning arguments
that may take some time to pursue. They were pleased that the
court seemed to focus on the standards set by the Environmental
Protection Agency, which the state says are illegal.
The state also won a concession during the hearing from the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, whose attorney said the state
could challenge the environmental impact statement for the
project, which had previously been ruled out and which could
provide Nevada with a strong argument against the project.
Attorney General Brian Sandoval said this morning that the
court's questions showed that Nevada had legitimate, strong
legal arguments against the site and was not just "knocking its
head against the wall."
"The government publicly blinked where they had not before,"
Sandoval said.
Sandoval and lead attorney Joe Egan said the best case could be
one that questions the EPA's standards.
Egan said the future will be continuing the court battle and
fighting the Energy Department's licensing effort.
"We are now really going to be getting ready for licensing,"
Egan said. "Two days ago we didn't know if that was even still
the case."
Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev, who sat through the hearing, said
there "was no home run."
"I was waiting for a Perry Mason moment and it didn't happen,"
she said.
Berkley and other Nevada officials expect the case to end up in
the Supreme Court
Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., who also attended the hearing, said
there are still thousands of pages of documents for the judges
to go through on this case.
"This is the beginning of a battle in the halls of justice
where this should be determined," Porter said. "It's a great day
for Nevada."
Egan said he was "encouraged by the body language" of the
judges during the arguments in the EPA case.
"The court made no pretense that it was troubled on the lack of
deferences to the National Academy of Science standard," Egan
said.
Nevada claims the agency violated the law when it established a
10,000-year compliance period for the site's radiation
protection levels because the academy recommended a longer time
frame. The state says the law required the agency to adopt
whatever the academy said.
Judges David Tatel and Harry Edwards asked tough questions
about the EPA's justification as to why it ignored the National
Academy of Science's recommendation.
"NAS says there is no scientific basis for limiting it to
10,000 years," Tatel said. "What could be more inconsistent with
that academy's recommendation?"
Justice Department attorney Chris Vaden said, on behalf of EPA,
that the agency considered policy and regulatory matters as well
as public comments and that it did not just adopt the NAS's
recommendation.
"(The EPA) did not disagree with NAS on scientific issues but
as a regulator, did not want to question the license on
something so far out," Vaden said.
If the court were to rule that the EPA needs to adopt a longer
time period, Sandoval said, that could be the end of the project.
"DOE has already said the canisters won't last beyond 10,000
years," Sandoval said. "They can't do it since the geology of
Yucca Mountain is inferior."
Energy Department spokesman Joe Davis would not speculate on
what the department would do if the standards were to change.
"Under the current science, we will meet the 10,000-year
standard," said Davis, who was in the courtroom Wednesday with
Energy Department's top Yucca official Margaret Chu.
The department will prepare its license application toward its
December submission goal to the commission, Davis said.
Egan said the other "clear victory" for Nevada was the
clarification that the state could object to the department's
final environmental impact statement during the future licensing
hearings.
In a last-minute effort just before the court adjourned, Egan
pointed out that under current regulation the state could not
challenge the EIS but only provide supplemental information.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission General Counsel Steve Crockett
and Justice Department attorney Ron Spritzer said it could
challenge specific issues in the document at the commission.
Egan said that was not going to be allowed and said he was
"delighted that we can litigate."
Meanwhile, Tatel and Edwards questioned Nevada most heavily on
its constitutional claim and challenges to the Energy
Department's recommendation and President Bush's approval of the
Yucca Mountain site. In 2002, Congress gave Energy Department
the go-ahead to move forward on its plans to store 77,000 tons
of nuclear waste at the mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las
Vegas.
Toward the end of the arguments, Edwards seemed to dismiss the
state's claim that the Energy Department should not have gone
forward with the site's recommendation because it was based on
bad guidelines and science was no longer relevant.
"Congress passed the law, it's on the books. Whatever preceded
it is moot," Edwards said. "I can't imagine what the
readdressibility would be."
President Bush signed a law in July 2002 that allowed the Yucca
project to move ahead, but Nevada sued, saying because Energy
Department and Bush followed through on the site's
recommendation based on flawed selection criteria the site
should not have be approved.
Another case argued that the Energy Department's recommendation
guidelines were wrong because they "abandoned" geologic
isolation as the main barrier to radiation getting out of the
site. The state wants the court to send the matter back to the
Energy Department.
Egan did not get to present his arguments on those cases. The
hearing ran overtime and the judge cut off the proceedings after
a debate on whether Nevada could even make the arguments in the
first place.
Congress' approval of Yucca Mountain and agreement with the
president overrides Nevada's arguments, Edwards said.
"End of discussion ... no cases can challenge that," he said.
Bob Loux, executive director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear
Projects, said before the recommendation a case was too
premature, and now it seems to be too late.
"It was caught between the cracks," Loux said.
Egan said the case against the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
and the future licensing hearings will still take issue with the
fact the mountain's rock makeup is no longer the main barrier
stopping radiation from getting out of the site.
Edwards and Tatel also picked apart the state's constitutional
challenge, saying the proposal would be on federal property and
nothing in the constitution applied to the state's argument.
"I don't know how this becomes a constitutional issue," Edwards
said.
Attorney Charles Cooper, who argued for Nevada, said the
government cannot dump the "unwanted burden" of nuclear waste on
one state without a good reason.
Cooper said an interpretation of the Constitution says: "States
must be treated alike, but the judges said those were property
right cases and not good to apply here.
Justice Department attorney Ron Spritzer said: "I don't see how
there can be any question that the issue has been resolved."
"We knew it was the biggest liability that we had," Egan said.
"No one has ever brought this issue to the floor."
Sandoval said the constitutional claim was a "novel theory,"
but the state brought the case since "no state has ever been put
in this position."
He said he would have to wait to see the court's decision
before he would make any recommendation to pursue a Supreme
Court case.
Democratic presidential hopeful retired Gen. Wesley Clark took
a stand against a nuclear dump at Yucca Mountain after the
arguments concluded.
"I am against the nuke dump at Yucca Mountain, period," he
said. "I will use the full force of the presidency to kill this
dangerous product, which would put the lives and health of
Nevadans at risk for generations."
*****************************************************************
24 RGJ: Court hears Nevada’s case against nuclear waste dump
RGJ.com"
By Doug Abrahms RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL 1/14/2004 11:22 pm
WASHINGTON — Nevada officials claimed partial victory Wednesday
after a federal appeals court heard its arguments that building
the nation’s only high-level nuclear waste repository 90 miles
outside Las Vegas could pose radiation hazards.
Nevada attorneys asked the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington,
D.C., to require that the Yucca Mountain waste dump protect
people from harmful radiation for 300,000 years, instead of the
10,000 years the Environmental Protection Agency is requiring. A
longer standard could make it harder for the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission to license construction of Yucca Mountain.
While the judges questioned the scientific validity of the EPA’s
standard, they seemed to reject Nevada’s argument that the
congressional process designating Yucca Mountain as the nation’s
waste dump was flawed. And the court didn’t hear perhaps Nevada’s
strongest argument — that the geology of Yucca Mountain won’t
prevent radioactive leakage. That question will be left to the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission to decide.
The appeals court is only the latest battleground for Nevada’s
efforts to stop the Energy Department from building Yucca
Mountain. The court could decide later this year to halt, delay
or allow the project to move forward.
The court bundled together 13 lawsuits in which Nevada, an
environmental group and others challenged Yucca Mountain on a
host of complex environmental, legal and constitutional issues.
Two of the three judges questioned a government lawyer over the
EPA adopting the 10,000-year rule, despite a National Academies
of Science report saying the radiation danger posed by housing
spent nuclear fuel from power plants could last much longer.
Congress also instructed the EPA to follow the National Academies
of Science recommendations.
“They’re very clear in saying 10,000 years is wrong,” Judge Henry
Edwards said.
Christopher Vardon, a government lawyer, responded that the EPA
set the standard at 10,000 years because the uncertainty grows
too large in trying to extend predictions to 300,000 years.
The judges attacked Nevada’s argument that the congressional
process to designate Yucca Mountain was flawed.
“It doesn’t matter that the law passed quickly. The law’s on the
books,” Edwards said.
The Energy Department claimed victory on that score.
“The decision-making process of whether or not to choose Yucca
Mountain is over,” said Joe Davis, an agency spokesman.
The Energy Department remains on track to file a licensing
application late this year for Yucca Mountain with the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. That process could take years, Davis said.
If the court changes the EPA safety standard beyond 10,000 years,
the Energy Department will comply, he said.
The court did not hear Nevada’s arguments that water runs through
Yucca Mountain’s geology faster than originally thought and could
spread radiation. But the court said Nevada can argue this issue
before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nevada attorney Joe Egan said the casks containing nuclear fuel
in Yucca will corrode much faster than the Energy Department
expects. Once the casks corrode, radiation will threaten local
drinking water, he said.
Also on Wednesday, Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark
came out formally against Yucca Mountain.
“I am against the nuke dump at Yucca Mountain, period,” Clark
said. “I will use the full force of the presidency to kill this
dangerous project, which would put the lives and health of
Nevadans at risk for generations.”
Copyright Reno Gazette-Journal, a Gannett Co. Inc.Newspaper. Use
*****************************************************************
25 AP Wire: Hearing on Duke's MOX fuel plans continues
| 01/15/2004 |
[kansas.com - The kansas home page]
PAUL NOWELL Associated Press
CHARLOTTE, N.C. - Environmentalists and Duke Energy Corp. clashed
Thursday over Duke's plans to test fuel containing a small amount
of weapons-grade plutonium at one of its nuclear plants by 2005.
The Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League asked a three-judge
panel to allow it to present new information about safety issues
raised by French scientists about the mixed oxide fuel, also
known as MOX, used in nuclear reactors in that country.
Duke Energy argued against allowing the NRC to consider the
information, saying it wasn't new and should have been presented
earlier.
The hearing was conducted by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
"We disagree with their argument that this information is new at
all and should even be considered," said Duke Energy spokeswoman
Rose Cummings, who said some of the research dates back to 1998.
BREDL's Louis Zeller said Duke was quibbling about the research
and using it as an excuse to keep important information out of
the hearing.
"If it wasn't new and important, then why did some French
scientists fly over in October to present their findings to the
NRC?" he said during a break.
Specifically, BREDL wants to present information from the French
Institut de Radioprotection et de Surete Nucleaire showing that
MOX fuel rods fail at lower temperatures than traditional uranium
fuel rods. It also wants to present findings showing malfunctions
with the sheath around the fuel rod that could result in
uncontrolled core meltdowns.
Duke Power Co., the electric utility subsidiary of Duke Energy,
eventually wants to use the MOX fuel at its McGuire Nuclear Power
Station near Huntersville, N.C., and the Catawba Nuclear Power
Station near York, S.C. They would be among the first in the
United States to use MOX fuel.
The hearing in Charlotte's federal courthouse is being conducted
by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. The board will decide
if there are grounds for a full hearing by the NRC on any of 12
safety issues raised by BREDL.
The panel is not expected to rule until next month whether to
dismiss BREDL's case or schedule a hearing by the NRC.
"We recognize that this is part of the process," Cummings said,
adding that Duke is confident it will receive the approval to go
ahead with the testing.
Updated Thursday, Jan 15, 2004
About Kansas.com | Terms of Use &Privacy Statement
*****************************************************************
26 Washington Post: Court Hears Arguments Over Nuclear Waste Dump
(washingtonpost.com)
Nevada, Others Oppose Yucca Mountain Project
By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 15, 2004; Page A03
Attorneys for the state of Nevada and environmental groups told a
U.S. appellate court yesterday that federal agencies ignored
science and law in deciding to bury 77,000 tons of nuclear waste
in a mountain outside Las Vegas.
Taking up the Yucca Mountain dispute, which has raged for two
decades, the panel of three judges with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit heard federal government
lawyers argue that the decision to create the dump for waste from
the nation's nuclear reactors was based on sound reasoning.
Nevada officials consider the federal court one of their last
hopes of stopping the $58 billion project, located in the desert
90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The panel is expected to issue
its decision in late spring or summer, and attorneys on both
sides said they would appeal to the full appellate court if they
lose.
The Energy Department hopes to accept the first shipments of
nuclear waste, now stored at 17 locations around the country, by
2010.
Yesterday, two of the three judges closely questioned the
Environmental Protection Agency's actions on the recommendations
from the National Academy of Sciences, but they appeared to favor
the government on a constitutional argument.
Judges Harry T. Edwards and David S. Tatel repeatedly expressed
concern that the EPA appears to have ignored Congress's
instructions to rely on advice from the National Academy of
Sciences to ensure public safety. EPA officials decided that, to
protect public safety, radiation levels inside the mountain will
need to be measured for 10,000 years, rejecting the academy's
finding that the nuclear material will remain dangerous much
longer, perhaps for 300,000 years.
Christopher Vaden, a Justice Department lawyer representing the
EPA, said the agency had to weigh "policy considerations" that
the academy had sidestepped. Edwards said that was irrelevant.
"The statute doesn't say that EPA adopts the National Academy's
recommendations . . . unless you determine the recommendations
are too burdensome," Edwards said. "They're very clear in saying
10,000 years is wrong."
Edwards also rejected Vaden's argument that the EPA has
discretion because of its rulemaking authority. "That's
nonsense," he said. "That's an old argument and you lose."
But the judges said they had serious doubts about whether they
could consider Nevada's claim that its constitutional rights had
been violated and that President Bush's decision in February 2002
to select Yucca Mountain as the site of the waste dump was flawed
and illegal. They suggested that their court has no reason to
revisit the president's decision because Congress passed
legislation in July 2002 affirming Bush's choice and rejecting
Nevada's objections.
The three-judge panel has consolidated the arguments of 13
lawsuits aimed at stopping the Yucca project into three main
categories that it considered yesterday. Project opponents have
argued that the EPA's radiation standards are too weak to protect
the public, that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should demand
that the mountain's natural geology ought to be able to contain
the nuclear material without the use of man-made barriers, and
that the Energy Department used flawed criteria in selecting the
site, violating the state's constitutional rights.
An Energy Department spokesman said the agency is confident in
its decisions and will proceed to seek a license for the waste
site.
But Geoffrey H. Fettus, who argued the case yesterday for the
Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, said
he was "cautiously optimistic" that the judges would order the
EPA to meet a higher standard in protecting the public. He and
Antonio Rossman, who represented Nevada, said new scientific
standards will lead to the conclusion that the Yucca site is not
safe.
"The site leaks like a sieve," Fettus said. "They jiggered the
facts to avoid dealing" with the dangers that would arise.
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
*****************************************************************
27 UK Independent: Ministers used nuclear rescue to 'cripple' British Energy
By Michael Harrison, Business Editor
16 January 2004
The Government rejected claims yesterday it had imposed a
"crippling" financial restructuring on British Energy in order
not to rescue the nuclear generator but to bail out its own
nuclear company, BNFL, the operator of the Sellafield
reprocessing plant.
A spokesman for the Department of Trade and Industry said that
the claims were "spurious" and flew in the face of the facts,
which were that the Government had intervened to prevent the
collapse of British Energy and protect safety and security of
supply.
Max King, a former investment manager at Hambros and now an
independent financial consultant, said that the so-called
"rescue" of British Energy had made the company's short-term
crisis much worse.
Writing in today's issue of Utility Week magazine, Mr King says
that the DTI could have defused the crisis that broke over
British Energy in autumn 2002 by extending it a medium-term
loan, with an equity option or repayment premium as a bonus for
the Treasury.
In the event, the rescue package ended up in a massive
debt-for-equity swap, which left shareholders with just 2.5 per
cent of the company and transferred its £4bn of liabilities into
a new Nuclear Liabilities Fund on condition that British Energy
deposited £275m worth of bonds in the fund and handed over 65
per cent of all future free cash flow.
Mr King argues that the £3.8bn indemnity given to British Energy
was no more than a "notional accounting entry", which would in
any case be reduced as electricity prices recovered and the
lives of the company's eight stations are extended.
He claims that the money going into the NFL would produce a fund
of "massive proportions" and far bigger than required by British
Energy alone to deal with spent fuel costs.
Mr King says the spare money could be used instead to help
decommission BNFL's own Magnox stations and deal with the
unwanted spent fuel from Sellafield once it had been
reprocessed.
"Instead of the Government rescuing British Energy, British
Energy has rescued BNFL and the Government," he writes.
The National Audit Office is about to publish its own report on
the rescue of British Energy and the restructuring of its spent
fuel contracts with BNFL, which is likely to take the DTI to
task.
The DTI spokesman said he was not going to get into a "war of
words" with a consultant who had written an opinion piece. But
he said: "There is not a mention of safety or security of supply
in the article. It was British Energy which came to the
Government, not the other way around. With a nuclear company,
especially one which has 22 per cent of the market, you cannot
just walk in and turn off the switch."
Mr King also criticises the new management of British Energy,
led by its chief executive, Mike Alexander, for making
"horrendous mistakes". The company sold forward the whole of the
current year's output and half of next year's when prices were
depressed and paid £316m to get out of onerous contracts with
Enron, Teesside Power and TotalFina when it would have been in a
much stronger financial position if it had waited for prices to
rise.
UK Independent Ltd.
*****************************************************************
28 Las Vegas SUN: Yucca Mountain workers sought for lung disease screening
By KEN RITTER
ASSOCIATED PRESS
LAS VEGAS (AP) - Yucca Mountain project managers began a lung
disease screening program Thursday for current and former
workers who may have inhaled airborne silica at the federal
government's nuclear waste repository in the Nevada desert.
Two hundred letters have been mailed, and more will be sent soon
to an estimated 1,200 to 1,500 current and former Yucca Mountain
site workers who are eligible to take part in the free silicosis
screening program, said program manager Gene Runkle.
Two current workers are being treated for silicosis, Runkle
said, although he said it was not clear if they contracted the
disease working at Yucca Mountain.
Project managers did not know where most former workers were.
Most were involved in tunneling and underground operations, or
in setting up exploratory experiments underground from 1992 to
present.
Any worker who spends or spent 20 days a year working in the
tunnels is eligible, Runkle said.
The Energy Department was providing names of former workers to
the University of Cincinnati, which was handling silicosis
screening and research. The university was also working with The
Center to Protect Workers' Rights to contact trade unions and
find former Yucca Mountain workers.
Most worked from 1992 to 1998, when tunnels were bored at the
Yucca Mountain site, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Workers
were issued dust masks as protective equipment, but Runkle said
that from 1992 to 1996 mask use was not consistently applied.
Tunnel ventilation and dust control was upgraded in 1995 and
1996, and worker monitoring for silica exposure was expanded in
1996.
Silica exists naturally in desert soils and in the rocks at
Yucca Mountain. It can become airborne during tunneling, and
inhaled silica can collect in the respiratory system. With
long-term exposure, it can cause silicosis, a chronic and
progressive lung disease with symptoms including coughing and
shortness of breath, the Energy Department said.
Margaret Chu, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management
director, said current screening and measures were protecting
the 140 workers now working at Yucca Mountain.
Runkle said that in 2001, two workers were exposed to elevated
silica levels in separate instances during their work shifts.
He declined to identify those workers, but said they are part of
the screening and monitoring process and were showing no
symptoms of silicosis.
The Energy Department wants to bury the nation's spent nuclear
fuel at Yucca Mountain beginning in 2010. Nevada is fighting the
plan.
---
On the Net:
Yucca Mountain project: http://www.ymp.gov
--
*****************************************************************
29 Public Citizen: Statement by the Plaintiffs in the Case Against
the EPA’s Radiation Release Standards for the Yucca Mountain
Repository
Jan. 14, 2004
Citizen Action Coalition of Indiana Citizen Alert Nevada
Desert Experience Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force Nuclear
Information and Resource Service Natural Resources Defense
We are convinced that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys
(EPA) radiation release standards for the Yucca Mountain
repository will not protect the health of future generations. We
are optimistic that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which
hears oral arguments today in a lawsuit seeking to block the new
standards, will come to this conclusion as well.
The EPA arbitrarily gerrymandered the site boundary to meet
radiation release standards to compensate for Yucca Mountains
unsuitable geology. Written specifically for Yucca Mountain, the
new boundary allows radiation that leaks from the high-level
waste to pollute the aquifer and migrate with the groundwater
south to a farming community. An unprecedented 18-kilometer
"controlled area," in which people are not supposed to access the
water for 10,000 years, is being contested by this lawsuit.
Outside this huge sacrifice zone, the groundwater is not supposed
to be contaminated above standards set under the Safe Drinking
Water Act.
The EPA claims that it would be too expensive to drill wells in
this 18-kilometer area, but two drinking water wells already
exist in this area, and the U.S. Department of Energys (DOE) own
research has found that drilling in a similar geographical area
in Colorado is economically viable. It is also unreasonable to
assume that the government will be able to maintain institutional
control over any region for the next 10,000 years to prevent
future generations from drilling there.
The site boundary is only about eight miles from Amagosa Valley,
an agricultural area where groundwater is used for irrigation.
Moreover, the EPA rule arbitrarily limits the regulatory
compliance period to 10,000 years, even though studies show that
the maximum doses from the repository are likely to occur in
300,000 years or more.
While the Nuclear Waste Policy Act gives the EPA discretion in
setting public health standards at the repository, the current
EPA rules were written to enable the site to be licensed, not to
protect the health of future generations.
We seek to have the EPAs Yucca Mountain rules set aside and sent
back to the agency to be made consistent with the standards now
in effect for other repositories and adjusted to protect people
and the environment for the dangerous lifetime of the waste.
Because the financial and public health impacts of the Yucca
Mountain project will affect people well into the future, we
believe that any decision with respect to licensing Yucca
Mountain should be based on prudent analysis and public health
standards, not political expediency. If the court sends the rules
back to the EPA, the project could be delayed for years, and even
permanently abandoned if radiation release limits cannot be met.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRC) Yucca licensing rules,
which depend on EPAs rules, would also have to be redrafted.
At the same time, this courts decision is not the end of the
opposition to the Yucca Mountain repository. DOE must still apply
and get a construction license from the NRC, and crucial
questions about the adequacy of the site remain to be answered.
We will remain involved in that process as long as it takes.
Public Citizen
*****************************************************************
30 KLAS: Sierra Club Holds Yucca Mtn. Luncheon
January 15, 2004
(Jan. 15) -- While Vice President Dick Cheney was in town for a
$250-a-plate luncheon fundraiser, another quite less expensive
luncheon took place to address the controversial Yucca Mountain
Project.
The Sierra Club held a $2.50-a-tamale luncheon at Dona Maria's
on Charleston and The Strip. There, they discussed the legal
battle taking place in Washington, D.C. and the price of Mr.
Cheney's fundraising luncheon.
The issue of having a nuclear dump in our backyard is now in the
hands of federal judges. Wednesday a federal court in
Washington, D.C. heard arguments in Nevada's lawsuit over
storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. A ruling is expected in
June.
All content © Copyright 2000 - 2004 WorldNow and KLAS. All
Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
31 KLAS: Local Yucca Mountain Fight Continues
January 15, 2004
Wednesday's day in court was one that opponents had been waiting
for -- for a long time. The state has said court was the best
chance at fighting nuclear waste coming to Nevada. Opponents say
even though the court hearing is over, they plan to continue the
fight from all fronts. More>>
Colleen May, Anchor
Local Yucca Mountain Fight Continues
(Jan. 14) -- While it may be several months before the U.S.
Court of Appeals makes it's ruling, those opposed to the Yucca
Mountain project aren't waiting for an answer. They're continuing
their efforts to get their message out.
Former Governor Bob Miller has been fighting the nuclear waste
issue for at least 20 years. "It's a personal issue with me. I
care about this state and the safety of my family and their
children and their children. This is a great place to live."
Miller says despite today's hearing at the U.S. Court of
Appeals, the push to stop the transportation of nuclear waste to
Nevada will go on -- especially when it comes to educating other
states.
Bob Miller says, "I think most of the states will be affected
when you consider 90% of the country's nuclear waste is generated
east of the Rocky Mountains. It's got to come from various parts
of the country and come all the way across to reach Nevada."
J. J. Straight, a conservation manager with Sierra Club says,
"Because of Las Vegas, the concentration of new people moving in
and people who sort of know some of the story but maybe feel like
it's a done deal. We're continuing to educate people about the
health potential dangers of Yucca Mountain."
The Sierra Club has fought the Yucca Mountain project since its
inception. "We're doing a series of walks, a series of community
forums, phone banks -- real grassroots efforts to educate people
and let them know they can still get involved in the fight
against Yucca Mountain."
The Sierra Club will spend the next few months handing out
postcards to residents. Members also plan to work with Sierra
Club organizations in other states where nuclear waste will pass
on the way to Yucca Mountain.
No matter what the U.S. Court of Appeals decides, it's likely the
next step will be the U.S. Supreme Court -- whichever side loses
in court will likely appeal. The speculation is that nuclear
waste would be shipped in 2010.
Colleen May, Anchor First Court Hearing on Yucca Mountain
State attorneys argued in front of the U.S. Court of Appeals
Wednesday against making Yucca Mountain the dump for the nation's
high-level nuclear waste. More>>
Cindy Cesare, Reporter Sierra Club Holds Rival Luncheon While
republicans were shelling out $250 dollars to meet Dick Cheney,
the Sierra Club held a shadow luncheon $2.50 to show the
excessiveness of the Republicans. More>>
Sierra Club Holds Yucca Mtn. Luncheon While Dick Cheney was
town for the $250-a-plate fundraiser, another quite less
expensive luncheon took place to address the controversial Yucca
Mountain Project. More>>
All content © Copyright 2000 - 2004 WorldNow and KLAS. All
Rights Reserved. For more information on this site, please read
*****************************************************************
32 canada.com: Feds warm up to uranium clean-up
Canadian Press
Wednesday, January 14, 2004
After years of federal and provincial bickering over cleaning up
abandoned uranium mines in northern Saskatchewan, the new federal
natural resources minister has said Ottawa will consider kicking
in some cash.
John Efford said Wednesday he is willing to revisit the idea of
paying some money to get the dangerously radioactive sites
cleaned up.
"The doors are open," Efford proclaimed after meeting with
provincial Northern Affairs Minister Buckley Belanger.
"I consider this a very serious problem."
Efford's stance is in stark contrast to the Liberal government's
position as recently as last fall.
In a letter sent in late September, Ottawa said the province owns
the old mines and Ottawa won't help pay for the estimated
$30-million cleanup.
But Efford, who was just named resources minister in December,
said that is in the past.
"I'm not a person who backs away from issues and I'm not an
individual who's got a closed mind," Efford said.
"I'm not going to look to the past. I am the new natural
resources minister of Canada."
The fight over who should clean up the abandoned mines in
northern Saskatchewan near the boundary with the Northwest
Territories has been simmering since the late 1990s.
The province maintains that the federal government should do the
work because it was Ottawa that first developed and regulated the
sites.
Most of the mines were used to harvest uranium ore and were
abandoned in the 1950s and 1960s when the ore ran out.
In 2002, the province released a report saying that many of the
sites pose "severe public safety hazards and possible long-term
environmental concerns."
Two sites were of particular concern in the report.
The Gunnar mine, about 25 kilometres southwest of Uranium City,
Sask., is said to have deposited 4.4 million tonnes of unconfined
radioactive tailings into Lake Athabasca since the operation was
shut down in 1964.
The site "contains numerous public safety hazards and
environmental concerns and is very accessible by tourists and
fishermen," the report reads.
The Lorado Mill site, about eight kilometres south of Uranium
City, is also highlighted in the report. Tailings there are said
to be leaching into two nearby lakes.
The abandoned mines are of huge concern to the people living in
the North.
Residents are worried that the radioactive material will kill off
wildlife and leach into their bodies, said Dale McAuley, chairman
of the New North lobby group and the mayor of Cumberland House,
Sask.
Some people fear they will get cancer, he said.
"The cleanup has to be done because it is going to get into the
environment -- into the fish, into the animals and so on -- and
it is just going to spread out more and more," McAuley said.
"The sooner we can deal with it and go on with life, the better."
Efford said his first priority will be to go back to Ottawa and
consult with Finance Minister Ralph Goodale -- the only cabinet
minister from Saskatchewan.
He then plans to return to Saskatchewan in February to tour the
sites.
Efford said he wants to give either a yes or a no quickly so that
everyone can "get on with their lives."
Belanger was pleased to hear the new minister's attitude.
"I said to him `we will do our part if they will do their part.'
This is a joint effort," Belanger said.
"People have been waiting too long."
© Copyright 2004 Canadian Press
*****************************************************************
33 Irish Examiner: Irish MEP calls for Sellafield probe
15/01/2004 - 8:02:52 AM
Irish MEP Nuala Ahern has called for a team of international
experts to investigate possible contamination at the Sellafield
nuclear plant in Britain.
Ms Ahern said yesterday that a study conducted by the British
Ministry of Health found higher levels of plutonium in people
living close to Sellafield than in those living farther away.
The Green Party MEP said experts should be called in to
investigate the possible dangers and the potential health threat
to Irish and British people.
© Thomas Crosbie Media 2004.
*****************************************************************
34 Whitehaven News: FRESH FEARS OF NEW NUCLEAR REPOSITORY
‘CON’
Published in The Whitehaven News on 15/01/2004
THE omission of any West Cumbrians on a new body set up to try
and find a solution to the long-term storage of nuclear waste has
sparked fears that the area will soon be back in the frame for an
underground repository.
Copeland’s MP, Jack Cunningham, has lodged a top-level protest
over the complete lack of West Cumbrian representation on the
Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM). And John
Henney, a former Copeland Council member who helped in the
setting up of CoRWM, has now branded the committee “a con,” aimed
at making it easier for the government to put Copeland right back
on top of the list for a future underground waste dump.
Meanwhile, MP Jack Cunningham says it is essential that West
Cumbria should have a voice on the high-powered committee charged
with looking at potential sites for disposing of the more
highly-active radioactive wastes. Most of it is already stored at
Sellafield.
The Longlands area of Gosforth, near Sellafield, was the area
originally earmarked by Nirex for a deep underground repository.
However, Nirex was forced to abandon investigations after losing
a public inquiry into its plans for a rock laboratory to find out
more about safety.
No-one from the Sellafield Local Liaision Committee has been
included on the government’s radioactive waste management
committee. Nor has John Henney, former chairman of the SLLC’s
emergency planning sub-committee, who served on the working party
which paved the way for CoRWM to be created.
“It’s a con from the word go,” he claimed. “At least two local
worthies, myself included, were invited to apply and were
rejected. We never even got to the interview stage, even though I
was on the original working party setting up the criteria to work
from!
“The big concern here is that civil servants in London organised
the selection procedure, ran and dictated it.
“Obviously, any local worthies with an independent, pragmatic
view are seen as dangerous to the establishment in this
particular area. When I was on the original committee I was
fighting like hell to get an input from Joe Public rather than to
confine it to experts. Now it seems Joe Public will be consulted
as and when required. That is just not good enough.
“We are the farthest away from London and as far as I am
concerned the establishment would like to keep it that way.
“The establishment don’t want to give themselves any more
problems by suggesting a site anywhere but up here,” Mr Henney
claimed.
Geologically, he said, London had substantial deposits of solid
blue clay impervious to water and more suitable for storing
properly packaged and treated nuclear waste underground.
“This is one of the areas which should have been investigated in
the Nirex days but wasn’t. Can you imagine the outcry from 12
million people if it had been?” John Henney declared.
The sensitive West Cumbrian situation was raised in Parliament by
Jack Cunningham who asked the Secretary of State for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs, to ensure that the knowledge and
experience of nuclear materials “held by the people” of the area
were represented on CoRWM. He was told by Eliot Morley, minister
of state for the environment, there had been a good field of more
than 400 candidates for membership.
“It is clearly important that West Cumbria should be strongly
represented in the debate which CoRWM will be launching and
overseeing. The committee must deliver recommendations that can
be seen to have a broad degree of support and the views of the
people of West Cumbria will be particularly significant, given
their experience and the stake they have in the safe management
of the UK’s radioactive waste. CoRWM is required to take into
account all views supplied to it in arriving at its
recommendations,” said the minister.
Dr Cunningham said: “I am not satisfied and still believe Cumbria
should have a voice on this body.”
*****************************************************************
35 [NukeNet] US EPA, Others to DOE: Risk-Based End States Vision
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:41:09 -0800
Pasted below for your convenience, please read and distribute widely. --Marylia
for further information,
Bob Schaeffer, ANA, (239) 395-6773
Marylia Kelley, Tri-Valley CAREs, (925) 443-7148
for immediate release Thursday, January 15, 2004
NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR NUCLEAR ACCOUNTABILITY, COMMUNITY GROUPS APPLAUD
U.S. EPA AND CALIFORNIA REGULATORS TOUGH CRITICISM OF ENERGY DEPT.
"RISK-BASED END STATES VISION" FOR LIMITING SUPERFUND CLEANUP AT LAWRENCE
LIVERMORE LAB
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), California
regulators, the City of Livermore and community residents have joined a
growing chorus of criticism of the Risk-Based End States (RBES) process
being pursued by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to weaken cleanup
plans at nuclear weapons sites across the country.
In a strong letter to DOE concerning the RBES "vision" for the
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Region IX of the U.S. EPA
emphasized its criticisms, including:
o "DOE's Vision proposes a groundwater cleanup alternative which
has been previously rejected by DOE, EPA, and the State regulatory
agencies."
o "DOE's Vision sacrifices Long-Term Effectiveness and may pose a
long-term liability for NNSA," the National Nuclear Security Agency, which
operates the Livermore Lab under DOE.
o "Perception of DOE's commitment to cleanup may be adversely
affected."
o "EPA, in consultation with the affected community groups and
State agencies, finds DOE's Vision to fall short of the statute and
promulgated regulations. . ."
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board also weighed in
with a strong letter noting, "The DOE's definition of risk is short-sighted
and short-term," claiming that the RBES plan would overthrow a legally
binding agreement "mandating cleanup of contaminated water both on-site and
off site."
The City of Livermore wrote that the RBES plan could result in "a
groundwater table of inferior and unacceptable quality."
Tri-Valley CAREs, which represents nearly 4,000 area families,
pointed out that RBES "will change the very nature of the cleanup strategy,
including cleanup levels, the point of compliance and the continued search
for new and more effective cleanup technology." The comment letter goes on
to detail laws, regulations and agreements that RBES would abrogate.
Said Marylia Kelley, executive director of Tri-Valley CAREs who
lives near Livermore Lab and on top of one of its contaminated groundwater
plumes, "DOE is proposing to walk away from legally-binding obligations and
let deadly poisons migrate willy nilly through the groundwater at Livermore
and other nuclear weapons facilities; over my dead body!"
ANA previously released a letter from the Ohio office of the EPA
regarding DOE's proposals for the Fernald plant which concluded that EPA
"is not supportive of any of the proposed items on the master list" and
"recommends no further pursuit of the actions proposed in the RBES
document." As DOE pursues RBES, additional community groups, cities and
state and federal agencies are going on the record to oppose it.
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson recently labeled "extortion" a
DOE attempt to withhold funds from the Los Alamos Lab unless the state
agreed to weakened cleanup requirements.
The RBES process is the latest phase of DOE's "Accelerated Cleanup"
program which ANA members have criticized for diverting energy from
necessary environmental work and "leaving more radioactive and toxic wastes
behind."
ANA is a national network representing the concerns of groups from
communities downstream and downwind of U.S. nuclear weapons sites.
Tri-Valley CAREs has been an ANA member organization since 1989.
-- 3 0 --
- the U.S. EPA letter on the Livermore RBES is attached. Other agency
letters and Tri-Valley CAREs' 8-page technical comment are also available
on request by email or fax.
Marylia Kelley
Executive Director
Tri-Valley CAREs
(Communities Against a Radioactive Environment)
2582 Old First Street
Livermore, CA USA 94551
- is our web site address. Please visit us
there!
(925) 443-7148 - is our phone
(925) 443-0177 - is our fax
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings at:
http://chrome.nocdirect.com/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
36 TriCity Herald: Group says Hanford sublease is stagnant
This story was published Thursday, January 15th, 2004
By Annette Cary Herald staff writer
The state of Washington should be seeking proposals from
companies interested in running the commercial nuclear waste
dump at Hanford, rather than automatically subleasing to the
same company, according to Heart of America Northwest.
Competition for the sublease might bring a higher price, lead to
safer environmental and worker practices, and provide economic
development, Gerald Pollet, of Heart of America, said at a
public hearing Wednesday night in Kennewick.
The state leases land near the center of the Department of
Energy's Hanford nuclear reservation for one of the nation's two
commercial, low-level radioactive waste dumps. The state has
subleased 100 acres of the land since 1965, most of those years
to US Ecology.
The sublease and all renewal options will expire in 2005.
Heart of America is not asking for changes that interrupt waste
disposal at the site, Pollet said.
Since 1993, the state, backed by federal law, has accepted
low-level wastes from only 13 western states, with the exception
of some small amounts with the most minimal contamination.
"The policy of the state has always been we are willing to do
our fair share, but we do not want to accept wastes from all
states," said Larry Goldstein of the Washington State Department
of Ecology.
The site accepts radioactive waste such as contaminated clothing
and trash from western university laboratories, hospitals,
biotechnical companies and the military.
The dump benefits the Tri-City economy through a surcharge on
waste disposed there. From 1993 to 2002, Benton County has
received $4.1 million, and the Hanford Area Economic Investment
Fund has received $5.6 million.
But the actual sublease payment is $59,412 annually, most of
which goes to Benton County.
The sublease appears greatly undervalued, Pollet said, and
competition for the sublease could result in more money for the
state and for local economy.
The state has not offered the sublease to potential competitors
because no other company has shown an interest, Goldstein said.
It's unlikely another company would, since the sublease holder
would assume liability for the 100 acres that are on the state's
list of hazardous waste sites, he said. An investigation is
ongoing after evidence was found that contaminants from the site
likely have leaked into the soil and possibly the groundwater.
But Pollet believes liability issues can be overcome, and
doesn't find it surprising that no company has expressed
interest, because the state has not opened the sublease to
competition.
Pollet also believes competition for the sublease could result
in proposals with plans for better operation of the site. That
could include using lined trenches and monitoring of water below
the surface of the ground. A different company also might be
willing to bring in a treatment facility that would also be
helpful for Hanford waste and good for the local economy, he
said.
Now packaged commercial nuclear waste is buried at the site in
unlined trenches and some liquid waste is put in underground
storage tanks.
Goldstein said operational issues will be addressed in licensing
procedures that are being considered in an environmental study
due this spring. The study may determine safer burial methods
than lined trenches, such as double packing waste or putting it
in concrete vaults, he said.
The price of the sublease also will be renegotiated if it is
renewed, he said.
© 2004 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
37 Knox News: Y-12 vulnerable to terrorism, watchdog group warns
By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com
January 15, 2004
OAK RIDGE — The Y-12 nuclear weapons plant is vulnerable to
terrorist attack, and the results could be devastating, a
government watchdog group said today.
The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) said Y-12 failed to
protect its nuclear materials last month during a high-level
security exercise, elevating concerns about Y-12 and its vast
cache of bomb-grade uranium.
If terrorists were to gain access to one of a half-dozen
facilities where Y-12 stores enriched uranium, they could build
and explode a nuclear bomb within minutes, said Pete Stockton,
senior investigator for POGO.
Y-12 is the nation's principal storehouse for bomb-grade uranium.
There is some debate about the potential yield of a quickly
assembled nuclear device, but Stockton said that's not the point.
"Whether it's the size of the Hiroshima bomb or some percentage
of that, it would really make a mess," he said in a phone
interview from his Washington office.
Early attempts to get comment from the U.S. Department of Energy
or the National Nuclear Security Administration, the
quasi-independent unit of DOE that manages Y-12 and other weapons
facilities, were unsuccessful.
Stockton has been a security analyst for decades, studying
problems at the DOE nuclear facilities. He previously worked for
U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., and the House subcommittee on
oversight and investigations.
According to information distributed by POGO, the results of last
month's security exercise were "pretty ugly." The group quoted
unnamed government sources.
POGO said the security forces at Y-12 could not adequately defend
the enormous stockpiles of uranium at the site. The group said
Y-12 has six "material access areas" that store large quantities
of uranium.
Stockton said the multiple storage areas pose a special concern,
because terrorists could use diversion tactics to start a ruckus
in one area and gain access to another. The entire event could
take place within minutes, he said, noting that some of the
storage areas are a short distance from the plant's fences.
There has been an increasing recognition of the security problem
with INDs, improvised nuclear devices, Stockton said. Unlike
radiation-dispersal devices or so-called dirty bombs, INDs would
be actual bombs that detonate and cause great damage and
distribution of radioactivity, he said.
DOE has known about the problem at its nuclear plants for a long
time, but has tried to keep the information secret within the
department, he said.
BWXT, manager of the Y-12 National Security Complex, currently is
planning a new storage facility to house the uranium and offer
better protection for the strategic nuclear materials. It
reportedly would be hardened sufficiently to withstand the impact
of an airplane crash.
Stockton said new storage vaults would be a partial solution to
the Y-12 vulnerability, but he questioned whether the storage
facility would actually be constructed. He said DOE has been
talking about such a facility for the past 20 years.
Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329.
2004, Knoxville News-Sentinel Co.
*****************************************************************
38 Knox News: No changes yet at DOE, TVA
January 15, 2004
Steven Wyatt, a spokesman in the U.S. Department of Energy's Oak
Ridge office, said Oak Ridge officials had not received any
guidance on changes in the drug-testing procedures and were
unfamiliar with the plans.
Direct federal employees are a relatively small part of the
overall work force in Oak Ridge. Contractor employees perform
most of the work at the federal facilities.
TVA spokesman John Moulton said the agency has not received
notice of any changes in drug testing.
"We certainly are aware different methods of drug testing are
under review," Moulton said. "At the present time, we have
received no notice that the federal government has approved
different methods for drug testing. If it is approved, we would
look at the different methods of drug testing to see if it was
practical for us to implement."
Moulton said TVA, the nation's largest public utility, now
conducts drug testing "for cause" if drug use is suspected and
conducts random drug testing of employees at its nuclear plants
who have unescorted access.
Subscriptions Online Media Kit Copyright © 2004 The Knoxville
News Sentinel Co. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
39 Oak Ridger: DOE public hearing tonight
Story last updated at 12:19 p.m. on January 15, 2004
By: Paul Parson | Oak Ridger Staff
paul.parson@oakridger.com
The Department of Energy will hold a public hearing at 6 tonight
to hear comments on two documents pertaining to the construction
and operation of depleted uranium hexafluoride conversion
facilities outside of Tennessee.
DOE informed the news media of the hearing at 1:52 p.m.
Wednesday - too late for a notice to be included in that day's
issue of The Oak Ridger. The media advisory indicated that the
proposed action is to transport cylinders of the depleted
uranium hexafluoride from the Oak Ridge K-25 site to the
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon, Ohio.
Depleted uranium hexafluoride was created during processing to
make natural uranium suitable for use as fuel, such as that used
in nuclear power plants.
The public hearing will take place in the DOE Information
Center, 475 Oak Ridge Turnpike. For more information, call
576-0885.
*****************************************************************
40 WATE: Watchdog Agency Calls Y-12 Plant Vulnerable to Terrorists
January 15, 2004
By TIM MILLER 6 News Anchor/Reporter
OAK RIDGE (WATE) -- A government watchdog group in Washington
D.C. Thursday released what it calls an alert, saying the Y-12
nuclear weapons plant is vulnerable to a terrorist attack.
The Project on Government Oversight (POGO) quotes un-named
government sources who witnessed a high-level security inspection
in December.
POGO says the security forces at Y-12 couldn't adequately protect
the huge stockpiles of highly enriched uranium that are housed
there.
Witnesses described the Oak Ridge test results as "pretty ugly."
The Y-12 facility is of particular concern, as it houses the most
materials in the nuclear complex that could be used for the
creation of an Improvised Nuclear Device, or an actual nuclear
detonation on site.
The alert also says terrorists could create a diversion at one
part of the complex, then build and explode a nuclear bomb within
a matter of minutes.
The U.S. Department of Energy had no comment on the alert.
All content © Copyright 2000 - 2004 WorldNow and WATE. All
*****************************************************************
41 NewsChannel 6: how will USEC finance their new facility?
Tuesday, January 13, 2004
wpsdtv.com
USEC may have announced its new billion dollar-plus plant in Ohio.
But some people question who will loan USEC that much with its
overshadowing debt, and below investor grade "junk bonds?"
At USEC's Monday announcement, a reporter asked CEO Nick Timbers
if the company is fit enough to finance the new plant?
Timbers made reference to "a number of different opportunities
that we have, both here and abroad to ensure the financing is in
place" by 2006, the projected start of construction.
"He has contended that he thinks the company will be able to
pull together the financing with partners, and some improved
earnings," said Philip Potter.
Potter is a veteran USEC-watcher for PACE, the union
representing most hourly USEC workers.
Between now and 2006, USEC might be forced into changes, Potter
said.
USEC has not paid down its initial $500,000,000 debt, but is
scheduled to repay $350,000,000 of it by 2006. Considering that,
can USEC borrow another $1,000,000,000, or more?
"They do not have that ability today," Potter said.
"They simply are not making enough in net profits," he added.
Financing the plant in a joint venture with a stronger company
could satisfy lenders, experts say.
Larry Housman, a vice president and consultant at
Hilliard-Lyons, says USEC reports earnings of 5-cents a share,
but has paid dividends of 55-cents a share. He says USEC must
"decide whether they're going to continue to have this pretty
lofty dividend."
*****************************************************************
42 Google News Alert - nuclear
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:43:09 -0800
N.KOREA Said Still Hiding Nuclear Program
Wired News
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An American envoy who made an unprecedented visit
to North Korea's nuclear complex said on Thursday he believes Pyongyang
is determined ...
LIBYA Ratifies the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
New York Times, NY
... 14 — Libya has ratified the nuclear test ban treaty, a United Nations
agency said Wednesday, less than three weeks after Libya publicly renounced
its plans ...
CANADA withdraws from international nuclear fusion project
Hindustan Times, India
Canada announced on Thursday that it was withdrawing from the international
multi-billion dollar experimental nuclear fusion project ITER. ...
Nuclear fusion row going critical - New Scientist Canada withdraws
from nuclear fusion project - SpaceDaily News Analysis: Politics
threatens to dominate nuclear fusion ...
FOES argue against plan for nuclear waste dump
Miami Herald, FL
Opponents of a planned nuclear waste dump in Nevada argued in court Wednesday
that the government has failed to ensure that the public will be protected
when ... Environmentalists and State of Nevada in Court to Challenge
Yucca ...
LIBYA never got nuclear plans off ground - diplomats
Reuters, India
VIENNA (Reuters) - Preliminary results of inspections of nuclear sites
in Libya have confirmed the view of the UN nuclear watchdog that Tripoli
was nowhere ...
SOUTH Korea hopes February nuclear talks as nations work on ...
San Francisco Chronicle, CA
South Korea said Thursday it hopes for a six-nation meeting in February
on the North Korean nuclear crisis, as the United States and its allies
try to work out ...
SAPS, US Join Forces in Nuclear Theft Case
AllAfrica.com, Africa
... serious and violent crime unit and US authorities secured the arrest
of Cape Town businessman Asher Karni, who has been charged with illegally
selling nuclear ...
MINISTERS used nuclear rescue to 'cripple' British Energy
Independent, UK
The Government rejected claims yesterday it had imposed a "crippling" financial
restructuring on British Energy in order not to rescue the nuclear generator
...
RUSSIA Says 'No' to Nuclear Fusion Plant in Japan
Planet Ark, NY
MOSCOW - Russia on Thursday declined Japanese pleas to back Tokyo's bid
to host a disputed nuclear fusion reactor as the global contest for the
multi-billion ...
This once-a-day News Alert is brought to you by Google News (BETA)...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Remove this News Alert:
http://www.google.com/newsalerts/remove?s=682e52ddd0720101
Create another News Alert:
http://www.google.com/newsalerts
Try Google News:
http://news.google.com/
*****************************************************************
43 War Wire: Japanese minister draws blank in Moscow talks on nuclear fusion
plant
WAR.WIRE
MOSCOW (AFP) Jan 15, 2004
Russia Thursday fended off Japanese efforts to win its support
for the building of the world's first experimental fusion reactor
(ITER) on Japanese territory in preference to a rival bid from
France, media reported.
Yevgeny Velikhov, Russia's delegate to the international council
that is to arbitrate between two the bids, said that Russian and
Japanese officials meeting in Moscow had "decided to make the
final decision at the next meeting of the ITER Council in Vienna
in February," the ITAR-TASS news agency said.
Japanese Education, Culture, Sport, Science and Technology
Minister Takeo Kawamura held close-door talks with Atomic Energy
Minister Alexander Rumyantsev on Thursday in a bid to secure
Moscow's backing in the contest to build the first reactor to
generate nuclear energy in the same way that the sun does.
Nuclear fusion involves bringing atomic particles together rather
than splitting them apart.
It is regarded as clean and safe, avoiding many of the pollution
problems involved in fission, and could theoretically generate
energy using sea-water as fuel, but so far scientists have been
unable to design a commercially-viable fusion reactor.
The site for the first such reactor was due to have been
announced in Washington last month at a meeting between
participants in the project -- the European Union, the United
States, China, Japan, South Korea and Russia.
After the failure to reach a consensus, the decision was delayed
and is expected to be made in mid-February.
The choice of the site must be made by consensus rather than by a
simple majority, partly because all parties will be required to
fund the project.
After Kawamura's talks with Rumyantsev, Velikhov noted that
nothing had changed: "Russia and China are inclined to back
France, while Seoul and Washington have supported Japan until the
last moment," he told ITAR-TASS.
Kawamura however said the Japan had still not given up hope of
gaining Russia's backing.
A Russian expert, Valentin Smirnov of the Kurchatov Research
Centre for Nuclear Synthesis, noted that the Japanese-proposed
site at Rokkasho, in the norther Aomori prefecture, was "not
inferior" to a rival French site at Caradache, near the southern
port of Marseille.
However France has an edge because the initial expense of running
the fusion reactor in Japan would be much higher than in France,
he said.
A Russian source close to the talks said Moscow had proposed a
compromise arrangement under which the reactor would be built at
Cadarache while the computer center to control the experimental
work could be set up at Rokkasho.
The ITER Council might consider the compromise, the source said.
The project to build the first fusion reactor is expected to cost
more than five billion dollars.
"Some two billion dollars have already been used on preparatory
work. The country which gains the right to operate the reactor,
should cover 42 percent of the cost of the project," ITAR-TASS
quoted Velikhov as saying.
Kawarmura, heading a 10-strong Japanese delegation, held talks
Wednesday with his South Korean counterpart Oh Myung and was due
Friday to fly to Beijing for talks with China's science and
technology minister Xu Guanhua.
WAR.WIRE
*****************************************************************
44 War Wire: Canada withdraws from nuclear fusion project
WAR.WIRE
MONTREAL (AFP) Jan 15, 2004
Canada announced Thursday that it is withdrawing from the
international multi-billion dollar experimental nuclear fusion
project ITER.
The news is a blow to the project after France proposed this week
that Europe could also break from the International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor (ITER).
Canada had once proposed a site near Toronto for the reactor. Now
France and Japan are competing for the valuable project.
Canada's Natural Resources Minister John Efford sent a letter to
other ITER countries on December 23 informing them of the
withdrawal, said Murray Stewart, the head of ITER Canada. Another
letter to the International Atomic Energy Agency was sent a few
days ago.
The withdrawal is mainly because of a lack of federal financing.
The choice between Japan or France was supposed to have been made
in December by delegates from the European Union, the US, China,
Japan, South Korea and Russia at a meeting near Washington.
But after they failed to reach the required consensus, the
decision was delayed, probably until mid-February.
Europe has the means to build its own version of the experimental
nuclear reactor, but will abide by a choice made between a site
in France and one in Japan, an EU spokesman said Tuesday.
The European Commission responded after French Prime Minister
Jean-Pierre Raffarin said Europe could go it alone on ITER's plan
to produce a clean, safe, inexhaustible energy of the future.
Japan wants to have the experimental reactor in the village of
Rokkasho-mura in Aomori prefecture. France has proposed its
southern town of Cadarache.
WAR.WIRE
*****************************************************************
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more
information go to:
*****************************************************************