*****************************************************************
11/30/04 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 12.285
*****************************************************************
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 BBC: Iran hails UN nuclear 'victory'
2 Guardian Unlimited: Iraq's Neighbors Prepare to Meet in Iran
3 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Takes Conciliatory Tone on Iran
4 Guardian Unlimited: White House Awaits Proof on Iran Promises
5 Korea Herald: Leaders of Korea, Japan, China agree to peaceful NK nu
6 Japan Times: One voice on N. Korea issue?
7 IAEA: IAEA Board Concludes Consideration of Safeguards in South Kore
8 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Goodbye to fossil fuels? Not quite yet
9 [du-list] uranium munitions as war crimes
10 [du-list] Corporate Manslaughter Bill UK
11 [du-list] Report on bank investment in DU weapons
12 NEWS.com.au: Australia may have sold WMD plans
13 Bellona: The Russian nuclear fleet might disappear in 10 years
14 ComputerWeekly: IAEA needs funds to update ageing systems
15 Xinhuanet: 10th ASEAN Summit closes in Vientiane -
16 IAEA: IAEA Director General Press Briefing, 25 November 2004
17 AU ABC: Greenpeace expresses Australian nuclear concerns
NUCLEAR REACTORS
18 US: RE: [NukeNet] Hydrogen, Via Nuke Power, Production Method
19 US: [BATN] Researchers claim hydrogen production breakthrough
20 Times Business: Scheme to save British Energy near completion
21 US: NRC: NRC Davis-Besse Oversight Panel to Meet Dec. 6 in Ohio
22 US: NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collecti
23 US: NRC: Sunshine Act; Meeting
24 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: U.S. wants KEDO plans abandoned
25 US: Brattleboro Reformer: VY makes 'Dirty Dozen' toxics list
26 US: APP.COM: Big guns needed to shut reactor
NUCLEAR SAFETY
27 [du-list] "equivalent of nearly 250,000 Nagasaki bombs"
28 [du-list] Homefront DU
29 [du-list] weapons type use in Fallujah - & D notice
30 [progchat_action] FOCUS | 'Unusual Weapons' Used in Fallujah
31 [du-list] Gulf War syndrome revisited
32 [du-list] Please join the emergency depleted uranium munitions
33 Bellona: Fire rages aboard nuclear icebreaker in St Petersburg
34 US: heraldtribune.com: Putting public health first
35 US: Wired News: Rocket Fuel in Milk, Lettuce
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
36 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste Meeting on Planning and
37 Las Vegas RJ: Nuclear lobbyists won't fight Yucca ruling
38 Las Vegas SUN: DOE: Tunnel supports not a priority for Yucca
39 US: Platts: French parliament sets waste policy hearings for early 2
40 Guardian Unlimited: Rowhani: Iran Has Not Abandoned Enrichment
41 US: PE.com: Next Wyle steps detailed
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
42 IPS-English AUSTRALIA: Non-Proliferation the Word,
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
43 [NukeNet] Comments on Hanford Waste Characterization/WIPP
44 DOE: Hanford PFP waste characterization
45 Las Vegas SUN: Environmentalists See Trouble Ahead
46 Deseret Nnews: Idaho nuclear waste cleanup continues
47 Idaho Statesman: INEEL charts a path to cheaper hydrogen fuel
48 lamonitor.com: DOE ponders kinks
49 HealthDay: No Cancer Link to Nuclear Site Found
OTHER NUCLEAR
50 [du-list] MTP Newsletter
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 BBC: Iran hails UN nuclear 'victory'
Last Updated: Tuesday, 30 November, 2004
[Hassan Rohani]
Mr Rohani said US unilateralism had suffered a setback
A top Iranian official has claimed a "great victory" over the US
after the UN said it would not punish Iran's nuclear activities
with sanctions.
Hassan Rohani said Iran would never give up its right to nuclear
power.
He stressed during talks with European countries Iran's freeze on
uranium enrichment was only temporary.
The UN atomic agency IAEA welcomed Iran's offer to freeze
enrichment in a statement on Monday that did not mention any
threat of future sanctions.
US President George W Bush has acknowledged Iran's latest move,
but says the US wants the enrichment programme terminated, not
just suspended.
At a press conference in Canada where he is on an official visit,
Mr Bush described the freeze as "a positive step, but it is
certainly not the final step".
Washington has accused Iran of going back on numerous promises
over its nuclear activities, and had been pushing for UN
sanctions.
For his part, Mr Rohani said the "whole world had turned down
America's calls".
"We have proved that, in an international institution, we are
capable of isolating the US. And that is a great victory," said
Mr Rohani, who heads Iran's top security body.
He added that the US representative at the IAEA meeting in Vienna
"was enraged and in tears, and everybody said that the Americans
had failed and we had won".
It was Iran's first direct comment on the nuclear controversy
since the IAEA resolution on Monday.
Short negotiations
According to Mr Rohani, Iran's offer to suspend uranium
enrichment would only apply for the duration of talks with the
EU.
"We are talking months, not years," the cleric said.
Officials from the UK, Germany and France are trying to get Iran
to renounce its nuclear fuel enrichment programme for good.
BBC correspondent Frances Harrison says Iran is hoping to be able
to offer Europe objective guarantees to prove it is not diverting
nuclear material for a secret weapons programme.
Talks between the Europeans and the Iranians are due to resume on
15 December.
Mr Rohani said "the length of negotiations must be rational and
not too long".
But, he added, the talks were a "historical opportunity for Iran
and Europe to prove to the world that unilateralism is
condemned".
Iran maintains that its nuclear programme is solely for peaceful
purposes and rejects accusations that it is working towards
technology which could eventually be used for the production of
nuclear weapons.
*****************************************************************
2 Guardian Unlimited: Iraq's Neighbors Prepare to Meet in Iran
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday November 30, 2004 12:16 PM
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
Associated Press Writer
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's capital is an unlikely place for
Iraq's neighbors and Egypt to discuss the infiltration of
terrorists into Iraq. Not only does the Persian country have a
long history of conflict with Arabs, it is also accused by the
United States of supporting the insurgency across the border.
Tuesday's meeting, though, is intended to send a signal that
Tehran recognizes the threat of groups such as al-Qaida and is
ready to help stabilize Iraq ahead of the first elections since
the fall of Saddam Hussein.
``The objective of the meeting is to help Iraqis overcome
instability and create security especially on their borders with
neighbors,'' said Ali Asghar Ahmadi, an Iranian security
official.
Ahmadi said Iran tries to keep insurgents from infiltrating its
border with Iraq. But at nearly 1,000 miles long, the frontier is
hard to police.
Iran's solution is to offer to train Iraqis to police the border
and provide them with the necessary equipment.
The participants have a wide range of national interests - many
at odds with each other - that could pose further problems for
Iraq.
The United States is expected to push Iran to clamp down on
militants entering Iraq, but on another front it is pressing
Tehran to freeze any nuclear activities.
Turkey, Iraq's northern neighbor, may be more interested in
pursuing its longstanding demand for a crackdown on Kurdish
militants who are allegedly holed up in northern Iraq and are
fighting for autonomy in southeastern Turkey.
The conference is designed to help countries share intelligence
on militant groups suspected of ties to the insurgency in Iraq.
Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt and the
United Nations have all sent representatives.
The meeting may also boost efforts by Iraqi government officials
to undermine support for militants and organize elections
scheduled for Jan. 30.
The selection of Iran as the venue is seen as symbolic.
``It is an assertion by Iran that it is committed to Iraq's
internal security and that Iran agrees to stopping infiltration
through its borders,'' said Abdul-Ridha Aseeri, a political
science teacher at Kuwait University.
Iraqi Vice President Ibrahim al-Jaafari told President Mohammad
Khatami in Tehran Saturday that insurgents, having been flushed
out of Fallujah, were ``changing their tactics from a military
phase into a political agenda to undermine the upcoming
elections.''
Washington has accused Tehran of interfering in Iraq and sending
money and infiltrators to support the insurgency there. Tehran
has denied the charges and says it has no interest in fomenting
instability across the border.
It was unclear how Iraq would respond to the Iranian offer to
train security personnel. The countries fought a war from 1980-88
that killed or wounded nearly one million people on both sides.
Egypt and Jordan have also offered to train Iraqis.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
*****************************************************************
3 Guardian Unlimited: Bush Takes Conciliatory Tone on Iran
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday November 30, 2004 9:01 PM
AP Photo VAH102
By BARRY SCHWEID
AP Diplomatic Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The United States is taking a time-out from
browbeating Iran about developing nuclear weapons, giving way -
for now, a least - while the Europeans try to sweet-talk Iran's
uranium enrichment to a permanent halt.
President Bush, at a news conference in Canada, reflected the
new conciliatory tone, saying Iran's promise to suspend
enrichment was a positive step.
``It's taken a long time to get to this stage where Iran is
willing to suspend,'' the president said Tuesday.
That suspension must be verified, and the ultimate U.S.
objective is permanent termination of nuclear weapons programs,
Bush said.
America's rhetorical muscling of Iran, and the Iranians'
pugnacious reactions, got the world's attention. But the
Europeans' offer of nuclear fuel, trade benefits and security
guarantees drew a promise from Iran to suspend enrichment of
uranium.
So U.S. officials retreated but warned that they might return
and seek punishment from the United Nations if Iran were to
renege on its latest pledge.
For months, the Bush administration played either the skeptic or
the naysayer - expressing doubt that the Europeans would get
anyplace, or saying no to motivate Tehran to take the Europeans'
proffered package of concessions.
Even in backing off, though, the administration had some tough
words for Iran.
``We will see, as time goes by, if they are now finally going to
comply in full. ... Iran has time and time again deceived and
denied, deceived the international community,'' White House
spokesman Scott McClellan said in backing the U.N. nuclear
watchdog agency's acceptance of Iranian promises.
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said past violations
by Iran justified having the U.N. Security Council consider
action against Tehran.
He said the United States went along with the International
Atomic Energy Agency's decision to accept Iran's pledge because
its chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, had reported Iran was implementing
its agreement with the European countries to suspend all
processes related to enriching uranium.
It is up to the agency to continue its investigation, Boucher
said. ``We are still as skeptical of Iran as we have ever
been,'' he said.
When will the United States and the world know that Iran is
keeping its word?
``Let's remember,'' Boucher said, ``the last time Iran junked
one of these agreements, they did it by public declarations, and
kicking out inspectors, and refusing visits, and breaking seals
(on enrichment facilities) and the whole lot,'' he said. ``So it
was fairly obvious what Iran was doing.''
Administration officials said Iran had a poor record when it
came to keeping its word. They threatened to make a case against
Iran before the U.N. Security Council and try punishment in
place of diplomacy.
The trouble is the United States probably did not have enough
votes in the council, certainly not for an oil cutoff. A Chinese
veto loomed, said Cliff Kupchan, vice president of the Nixon
Center in Washington
``The only way out of this is a diplomatic solution. A military
option holds little promise,'' said Kupchan, a former Clinton
administration official who is an expert on Iran. The
administration ``has been increasingly disposed toward giving
diplomacy a chance, which could point to a major policy
change,'' he added.
``I think both sides realize the only way back from the abyss is
to find a deal both sides can live with; if uneasily, but live
with,'' Kupchan said.
Robert Einhorn, a former State Department official who is now an
analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies,
attributed the administration's adoption of a wait-and-see
stance to lacking the votes to punish Iran in the Security
Council.
On top of that, he said, the administration is heavily focused
on elections in Iraq.
``It doesn't want to have a crisis over Iran at this stage,''
Einhorn said.
If the deal with the Europeans were to slow down Iran's
enrichment program, that would be a good result, Einhorn said,
``and the administration will not have had to get its hands
dirty by talking to Iran directly or by making concessions.''
The next diplomatic test will come in mid-December when the
Europeans insist on a permanent Iranian freeze.
By then, the Bush administration will consider whether to offer
Iran the guarantees against attack it seeks,which already have
been offered North Korea, and whether the bad cop should talk
directly to the suspect.
---
EDITOR'S NOTE - Barry Schweid is diplomatic correspondent for
The Associated Press.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
*****************************************************************
4 Guardian Unlimited: White House Awaits Proof on Iran Promises
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday November 30, 2004 8:01 AM
AP Photo VIE148
By BARRY SCHWEID
AP Diplomatic Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The United States is taking a time out from
browbeating Iran about its nuclear weapons, giving way - for
now, at least - while the Europeans try to sweet-talk Iran's
uranium enrichment to a halt.
America's rhetorical muscling of Iran, and the Iranians'
pugnacious reactions, got the world's attention. But the
Europeans' offer of nuclear fuel, trade benefits and security
guarantees drew a promise from Iran to suspend enrichment of
uranium.
So U.S. officials retreated but warned that they might return
and seek punishment from the United Nations if Iran were to
renege on its latest pledge.
For months, the Bush administration played either the skeptic or
the naysayer - expressing doubt that the Europeans would get
anyplace, or saying no to motivate Tehran to take the Europeans'
proffered package of concessions.
Even in backing off, though, the administration had some tough
words for Iran.
``We will see, as time goes by, if they are now finally going to
comply in full. ... Iran has time and time again deceived and
denied, deceived the international community,'' White House
spokesman Scott McClellan said in backing the U.N. nuclear
watchdog agency's acceptance of Iranian promises.
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said past violations
by Iran justified having the U.N. Security Council consider
action against Tehran.
He said the United States went along with the International
Atomic Energy Agency's decision to accept Iran's pledge because
its chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, had reported Iran was implementing
its agreement with the European countries to suspend all
processes related to enriching uranium.
It is up to the agency to continue its investigation, Boucher
said. ``We are still as skeptical of Iran as we have ever
been,'' he said.
When will the United States and the world know that Iran is
keeping its word?
``Let's remember,'' Boucher said, ``the last time Iran junked
one of these agreements, they did it by public declarations, and
kicking out inspectors, and refusing visits, and breaking seals
(on enrichment facilities) and the whole lot,'' he said. ``So it
was fairly obvious what Iran was doing.''
Administration officials said Iran had a poor record when it
came to keeping its word. They threatened to make a case against
Iran before the U.N. Security Council and try punishment in
place of diplomacy.
The trouble is the United States probably did not have enough
votes in the council, certainly not for an oil cutoff. A Chinese
veto loomed, said Cliff Kupchan, vice president of the Nixon
Center in Washington
``The only way out of this is a diplomatic solution. A military
option holds little promise,'' said Kupchan, a former Clinton
administration official who is an expert on Iran. The
administration ``has been increasingly disposed toward giving
diplomacy a chance, which could point to a major policy
change,'' he added.
``I think both sides realize the only way back from the abyss is
to find a deal both sides can live with; if uneasily, but live
with,'' Kupchan said.
Robert Einhorn, a former State Department official who is now an
analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies,
attributed the administration's adoption of a wait-and-see
stance to lacking the votes to punish Iran in the Security
Council.
On top of that, he said, the administration is heavily focused
on elections in Iraq.
``It doesn't want to have a crisis over Iran at this stage,''
Einhorn said.
If the deal with the Europeans were to slow down Iran's
enrichment program, that would be a good result, Einhorn said,
``and the administration will not have had to get its hands
dirty by talking to Iran directly or by making concessions.''
The next diplomatic test will come in mid-December when the
Europeans insist on a permanent Iranian freeze.
By then, the Bush administration will consider whether to offer
Iran the guarantees against attack it seeks,which already have
been offered North Korea, and whether the bad cop should talk
directly to the suspect.
---
EDITOR'S NOTE - Barry Schweid is diplomatic correspondent for
The Associated Press.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
*****************************************************************
5 Korea Herald: Leaders of Korea, Japan, China agree to peaceful NK nuke
resolution
2004.11.30
[http://www.voiceware.co.kr]
President Roh Moo-hyun and the leaders of China and Japan agreed
on Monday to boost their cooperation for the peaceful resolution
of the North Korean nuclear issue.
Roh, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and Japanese Prime Minister
Junichiro Koizumi held a tripartite session on the sidelines of
the yearly ASEAN+ 3 summit which groups leaders of the 10 member
states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations plus South
Korea, China and Japan.
Roh urged North Korea to make a "strategic" decision as soon as
possible to resolve the nuclear issue peacefully.
Three previous rounds of the six-party talks on the nuclear
issue, between the Koreas, the United States, China, Japan and
Russia, was unsuccessful in producing tangible results. A fourth
round scheduled for September did not take place because the
North refused to attend.
With the uncertain resolution ahead, the United States, Japan,
South Korea and the European Union came to a decision on Friday
to extend for another year a freeze on a project to build two
light-water nuclear reactors in North Korea. All five of North
Korea's partners in the stalled talks have said they're aiming
for a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula.
Roh stressed the need for the three Northeast Asian countries to
cooperate closely so an East Asian Summit can be established soon
as a prelude to developing the ASEAN+3 summit into an East Asian
Community. Wen and Koizumi responded said they will closely
discuss the issue with ASEAN member states.
The Chinese premier told the Korean and Japanese leaders, "The
cooperation of the three sides is very important for peace,
stability and development in Northeast Asia and for all of East
Asia." He added, "China wants to work together with Japan and
South Korea to promote cooperation between the three sides."
2004.11.30
[http://www.heraldcampus.co.kr/Premium/]
*****************************************************************
6 Japan Times: One voice on N. Korea issue?
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
By KEIZO NABESHIMA
Multilateral efforts to stop North Korea's nuclear-weapons
program are gaining momentum. Leaders of the United States,
China, Japan, South Korea and Russia, meeting bilaterally on the
sidelines of the recent Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)
summit in Santiago, Chile, agreed that six-nation talks should be
resumed at an early date to discuss a peaceful solution.
U.S. President George W. Bush, at a press conference following
his meeting with Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, said, "The
leader of North Korea (Kim Jong Il) will hear a common voice"
from the leaders of the five nations at the next round of
six-party talks.
The on-and-off talks entered a more practical phase at the last
(third) round held in June, when the U.S. for the first time
offered "carrots" (energy supplies) in exchange for a North
Korean nuclear freeze. A fourth round was delayed as Pyongyang
waited to see the outcome of the U.S. presidential election. All
the while, though, its nuclear drive has continued, ratcheting up
tensions on the Korean Peninsula.
The U.S. overture does not mean that the ultimate goal of the
talks -- complete dismantlement of North Korea's nuclear weapons
program -- has changed. American pressure will increase if
Pyongyang does not return to the table soon with a specific
proposal of its own. Hardliners in the Bush administration will
likely gain influence in its second term now that two leading
moderates -- Secretary of State Colin Powell and Deputy Secretary
of State Richard Armitage -- are on the way out.
As for South Korea, it is increasingly important that the
administration of President Roh Moon Hyun -- which has followed a
conciliatory policy toward the North -- work more closely with
Washington and Tokyo.
Previously Pyongyang had balked at the U.S. demand for
"complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantlement (CVID)" of
its nuclear program. At June's third round, the U.S. did not use
the term; instead, it proposed energy aid, provided that North
Korea took preliminary steps in three months' time, including
freezing all nuclear activities and accepting international
inspections.
Pyongyang's response was partial. It agreed to stop extracting
plutonium from spent nuclear fuel but refused inspections by the
International Atomic Energy Agency. Also, it denied allegations
that it was pushing to produce highly enriched uranium. These
positions remain unchanged.
In July, the North Korean Foreign Ministry said in a statement
that the U.S. proposal was "worthless." It also rejected the
"Libyan formula" (economic and other rewards for giving up
weapons of mass destruction), calling it a "foolish idea."
Pyongyang's official newspaper, Rodong Sinmun, said Nov. 21,
during the APEC summit, that "the DPRK (the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea) will make sustained efforts to beef up its
self-defensive deterrent force as long as the U.S. persists in
its attempt to stifle the DPRK with nuclear weapons."
Most likely the next round will focus on specifics, such as the
scope of the freeze and verification measures. North Korea will
have to make specific "replies." Given the deep distrust between
the two protagonists, however, the road to "complete
dismantlement" looks tortuous. To achieve this objective, the
five nations must step up joint efforts.
At a press conference in Santiago, Koizumi called on the North
Koreans to return to the talks as soon as possible and deal
positively with the abductee issue as well as the nuclear and
missile problems. "(North Korea) has a great deal to gain from
giving up nuclear weapons," he said. "Working together with other
nations, Japan will make a patient effort to sell this point."
It is significant that the APEC summit provided the venue for
five-nation cooperation. This means two things: First, the U.S.
will not take unilateral action on the Korean Peninsula, as it
did in the war against Iraq. Second, the multilateral format
discourages direct talks between the U.S. and North Korea -- the
format favored by Pyongyang.
But it is also true that the U.S. and China are taking different
approaches. Washington, which gives top priority to the nuclear
issue in its Asia diplomacy, maintains a tough position against
North Korea. By contrast, Beijing, which is serving as chairman
of the six-party forum, considers itself the mediator between
Washington and Pyongyang.
Chinese President Hu Jintao, in his meeting with Bush,
emphasized the virtues of "sincerity and patience" and called for
U.S. restraint.
Similarly, the Russian ambassador to Japan, Alexander P.
Losyukov, who had represented Russia at the six-party talks, said
in Tokyo in October that diplomatic negotiations with North Korea
require a "patient and careful approach." The exercise of force,
including sanctions, could lead to a dangerous situation, he
said, because it is utterly impossible to anticipate how the
North would react.
Losyukov also counseled patience, though indirectly, with
respect to the Japan-North Korea negotiations on the abductee
issue. Opinion is growing within the Liberal Democratic Party
that Japan should slap economic sanctions on the North Koreans.
Likewise, "sincerity and patience" underscored the China-South
Korea summit meeting in Santiago.
It is likely, though, that if Pyongyang continues to boycott the
six-party talks, the Bush administration will run out of patience
and take some strong action. It is time for North Korean leader
Kim Jong Il to make a rational decision in response to the
"common voice" of the international community. He should respond
similarly to the abductee issue so that the stalled normalization
talks with Japan can get started again.
Keizo Nabeshima, former chief editorial writer for Kyodo News,
writes on political and international affairs.
The Japan Times: Nov. 30, 2004 (C) All rights reserved
*****************************************************************
7 IAEA: IAEA Board Concludes Consideration of Safeguards in South Korea
+ [IAEA.ORG :: Atoms for Peace]
Staff Report
26 November 2004 [Ambassador Hall]
IAEA Board Chair Ingrid Hall of Canada, at the opening session
of the Board's meeting in November 2004. (Credit: D. Calma/IAEA)
+ Story Resources
+ Director General's Report [pdf]
+ IAEA Board of Governors
The IAEA Board of Governors has concluded discussions on the
implementation of the safeguards in the Republic of Korea. The
Board, which considered a report on the matter from IAEA
Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, agreed on a conclusion
issued by Board Chair Ingrid Hall of Canada.
The Board Chairman's Conclusion follows:
IAEA Board of Governors Chairman's Conclusion, 26 November 2004
Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Republic
of Korea
"The Board took note of, and expressed appreciation for, the
Director Generals report contained in document GOV/2004/84.
"The Board shared the Director Generals view that given the
nature of the nuclear activities described in his report, the
failure of the Republic of Korea to report these activities in
accordance with its safeguards agreements is of serious concern.
"At the same time, the Board noted that the quantities of
nuclear material involved have not been significant, and that to
date there is no indication that the undeclared experiments have
continued.
"The Board welcomed the corrective actions taken by the Republic
of Korea, and the active cooperation it has provided to the
Agency.
"The Board encouraged the Republic of Korea to continue its
active cooperation with the Agency, pursuant to its Safeguards
Agreement and Additional Protocol.
"The Board observed that the Republic of Korea has an Additional
Protocol in force and that developments in the Republic of Korea
demonstrate the utility of the Additional Protocol.
"The Board requested that the Director General report as
appropriate."
Copyright 2003-2004, International Atomic Energy Agency, P.O.
Box 100, Wagramer Strasse 5, A-1400 Vienna, Austria
Telephone (+431) 2600-0; Facsimilie (+431) 2600-7; E-mail:
Official.Mail@iaea.org [Official.Mail@iaea.org]
Disclaimer
*****************************************************************
8 Salt Lake Tribune: Goodbye to fossil fuels? Not quite yet
[http://www.sltrib.com]
Article Last Updated: 11/29/2004 10:22:15 PM
But Utah company's technology may make gas pumps obsolete someday
By Greg Lavine The Salt Lake Tribune
It all came down to a small, Utah-made device sitting inside
an Idaho pottery kiln.
This recent experiment at a national research laboratory in
Idaho Falls, Idaho, may pave the way for an efficient means of
extracting hydrogen from water. Hydrogen obtained through this
method could one day replace fossil fuels in powering cars and
trucks.
But before trading in that gas guzzler, keep in mind it could
be decades before this technology finds its way to commercial
use. Ceramatec Inc., a privately held South Salt Lake company,
worked with researchers at the Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory to demonstrate the utility of this
high-temperature process using a device slightly larger than a
brick.
With paper-thin ceramics made from cubic zirconia, an
artificial gem, inside the small-scale device, researchers say
they separated oxygen from water to leave hydrogen. During a
Monday news conference, Ceramatec Chief Executive Ashok Joshi
announced his company received a $2.6 million federal government
contract to build a larger version to test the system's
commercial viability.
"Hydrogen is a central business and research interest at
Ceramatec," Joshi said.
Idaho engineers ultimately hope to use the device in a
next-generation nuclear reactor planned for the Idaho Falls lab.
To work at its most efficient level, the hydrogen-extracting
device needs intense temperatures hotter than those found in
today's nuclear power plants.
Michael Anderson, project leader for the U.S. Department of
Energy's Idaho hydrogen project, said the Generation IV nuclear
reactor could be up and running by 2017.
A major problem with setting up a hydrogen-based economy is
that it requires energy to produce hydrogen as a fuel.
"Hydrogen is an energy carrier," said Steve Herring, of the
Idaho national lab. "It is not an energy source in and of
itself."
Most ways to produce hydrogen involve either natural gas or
coal, both of which emit greenhouse gases. The benefit to using
hydrogen as a fuel source is that it puts out no harmful
emissions. But releasing greenhouse gases from gas or coal to
produce a clean fuel source negates the environmental benefits.
Anderson said nuclear power produces no greenhouse gases, so
it is a prime candidate for hydrogen production.
While he acknowledged that nuclear power does produce waste,
Idaho national lab researchers are developing methods to reduce
the amount of nuclear waste that future reactors produce.
This new way to produce hydrogen, using a process called
high-temperature electrolysis, was initially demonstrated inside
a pottery kiln in Idaho, said Joseph Hartvigsen, project leader
at Ceramatec.
Electrolysis, which involves running an electric current
through water, has been used for decades. To make the process
more efficient, Ceramatec and Idaho national lab researchers
added high temperatures. For the next-generation nuclear
reactors, temperatures could soar to 1,600 degrees.
Making a commercially viable prototype, which will require an
expansion of manufacturing capability at Ceramatec, will require
a device 100 times bigger than the test version, he said. Since
the company's focus is research and development with an eye
toward commercialization, Ceramatec will not be gearing up for
mass production even if the material is economically viable.
A successful product could be manufactured by a spin-off
company or through a partnership with a larger company,
Hartvigsen said.
The commercial prototype is expected to be ready in three
years, well before the next-generation nuclear reactor is
expected to come on line. In the meantime, other electricity
sources, such as wind power and solar concentrators, could be
used with the device.
Anderson said intermediate uses for the device could include
using the hydrogen to more efficiently convert low-grade crude
petroleum into a usable product and to synthesize other existing
fuels. But the long-term goal is producing hydrogen for fuel
cells in cars and other devices.
Joshi said the cubic zirconia material in this device was
originally designed for solid-oxide fuel cells that the company
makes. The state-of-the-art material also fits the purposes of
Idaho lab researchers for hydrogen work.
"These are side benefits that we can apply to this project,"
Joshi said.
glavine@sltrib.com
About Ceramatec's plan
Salt Lake City's Ceramatec, Inc., and the Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory teamed up to develop
what they say is a more efficient way to extract hydrogen from
water. The method involves electrolysis, or running electrical
current through water.
* A planned next-generation nuclear reactor, slated for the
Idaho Falls national laboratory in 2017, would produce the
intense temperatures needed to make the process work most
efficiently.
* The future nuclear reactors could provide the needed high
temperatures, up to 1,600 degrees, as well as the electricity
needed to separate the hydrogen out of the water.
© Copyright 2004, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
9 [du-list] uranium munitions as war crimes
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:31:04 -0800
It has been shown that not only is military use of Uranium violation of
International Humanitarian Law (Parker) but in three tribunal Judgements
now, those who used it in war were judged to be war criminals. These were
the '91 use in the Gulf War, American use in Afghanistan by the ICTA
(Afghanistan) and the Aug 26 2004 Judgement about Iraq.
In each case, users of uranium munitions have been found to be war
criminals. I recall no tribunal regarding Balkans use.
Ross Wilcock, arwilcock@sympatico.ca
True or false; fair or fraud?
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Nichols [mailto:bobnichols@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 10:44 PM
To: james@bovik.org; du-list@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [du-list] Please join the emergency depleted uranium munitions
petition of 23 November 2004
James Salsman
Mr Salsman,
You speak of "unlicensed use" of depleted uranium munitions in the petition.
The Army is already licensed by the NRC to possess and store munition for
shipment and use.
I think it says "use." Anyway, if they are already licensed to have these
things, how does a petition against unlicensed use help our effort?
Regards,
Bob Nichols
-------Original Message-------
From: James Salsman
Date: 11/29/04 19:31:22
To: du-list@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [du-list] Please join the emergency depleted uranium munitions
petition of 23 November 2004
Please email a copy of the following petition, asking to, "join the
emergency depleted uranium munitions petition of 23 November."
mailto:leavitt.michael@epa.gov,nastri.wayne@epa.gov,du-petition@bovik.org
ohcinfo@cdc.gov,biro.susan@epa.gov,mmarty@oehha.ca.gov
[optionally cc: tara@miltoxproj.org]
Please send a copy of your message to your local congressional
delegation. Please remember to replace, "[name and address]" with your own
information. Also, you might want to omit or replace, "As a parent of a
minor daughter," with something like, "As a relative of a Gulf War veteran,"
or whatever best fits your circumstances. We are all affected, as taxpayers
who pay to support the veterans administration and other health care, public
and private.
Michael O. Leavitt
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Wayne Nastri
Region 9 Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
EMERGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE PETITION FOR ISSUANCE OF NEW REGULATION
RE: DEPLETED URANIUM MUNITIONS
Dear Administrators:
I request an emergency regulation concerning the use of depleted uranium
munitions. As a parent of a minor daughter, I became an interested person
when I was informed of the significant risk of birth defects detected in
persons fathered by Gulf War veterans [1]. This request is submitted in
accordance with 5 USC 553.
For the reasons [2] set forth below, I ask that the Agency issue an
emergency regulation immediately to protect those in combat from chromosome
damage and the resulting birth defects, and to protect my family from the
effects of same.
Please issue new regulations as follows to correct this
problem: "Depleted uranium burning in air or in the presence of
nitrogen-based explosives or propellants will produce toxic uranyl nitrates,
which are partially soluble and produce six orders of magnitude more
chromosome damage than would be expected from their radioactivity alone.
Please discontinue use of depleted uranium munitions. Unlicensed use of
depleted uranium is henceforth forbidden." Please reply as soon as possible
to let me know the status of this request. Please send me a copy of all
public notices concerning this request, including all requests for public
comment, by email and by first-class mail to the following address.
Sincerely,
[name and address]
References:
[1] Quoting from the International Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 33, no. 1,
pp. 74-86: http://ije.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/33/1/74
"Overall, the risk of any malformation among pregnancies reported
by men was 50% higher in Gulf War Veterans (GWV) compared with Non-GWVs
(NGWV).
"For musculo-skeletal malformations, the significant association
with Gulf war service was largely driven by the `other musculo-skeletal
malformations' subgroup (Odds Ratio (OR) = 3.1 [meaning a 210% increase
in observed birth defects compared to nonveterans], 95% Confidence
Interval for Odds Ratio (CI): from 1.9, to 5.1). The commonest diagnoses
within this subgroup include codes related to head size and shape
(plagiocephaly, macrocephaly, or craniosynostosis) (33 GWV/9 NGWV). The
risk of `other non-chromosomal malformations' was 70% higher among GWV,
and this was driven wholly by the group of malformations remaining when
specified syndromes were removed (OR = 3.5, 95% CI: 1.5, 8.4)....
"The risk of genital malformations was 80% higher in offspring of
GWV compared with NGWV (P = 0.04), the most common diagnosis being
hypospadias (24 GWV/10 NGWV). Risks of one or more malformation within
the urinary system (OR = 1.6, 95% CI: 1.1, 2.2), and of musculo-skeletal
system malformations (OR = 1.8, 95% CI: 1.4, 2.4), were statistically
significantly associated with paternal Gulf war service. Within the
urinary system, the risk of renal anomaly was approximately 60% higher
in the offspring of GWV and the commonest diagnosis within this subgroup
was vesico-uretero-renal reflux (32 GWV/17 NGWV).
"The risk of malformation within the digestive system as a whole
was 40% higher among offspring of GWV, the effect being driven by the
subgroup `other malformations of the digestive system' (OR = 1.6, 95%
CI: 1.0, 2.5). The three commonest diagnoses in this subgroup were
pyloric stenosis, congenital hiatus hernia, and unspecified anomalies of
the digestive system."
[2] Dr. Albrect Schott found that damage to chromosomes in the white blood
cells of Gulf War veterans was about five times greater than the rest of the
population ("Chromosome aberration analysis in peripheral lymphocytes of
Gulf War and Balkans War veterans," in Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry,
2003;103(3):211-9.) A February, 2004, U.K. Pension Appeal Tribunal Service
decision in Edinburgh implicated depleted uranium in birth defects of
children fathered by a Gulf War Veteran; please see:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,937902,00.html
and:
http://www.sundayherald.com/40306
Given this new information about birth defects, I don't
believe that DU weaponry represents any kind of a long-term strategic
advantage. Even if it amounted to a much greater short-term tactical
advantage, it would still, given this evidence, mean a potentially long term
poisoning of air, people, land, and the sea. Television station KHOU,
Channel 11 in Houston, Texas, reported the following in March:
"An internal Veterans Administration study shows children of
Gulf War vets have twice the normal rate of birth defects. A
Department of Defense-funded study shows children of male Gulf
War vets have three times the average rate of heart defects.
And a study just released this month shows women who served in
the first Gulf War suffered three times the normal rate of
miscarriages in the period just after the conflict."
-
http://www.khou.com/news/upclose/stories/khou040304_ds_UpCloseGulfWarDefects
52dc83ac.html
Please have a look at this reported pattern over time: http://www.irak
be/ned/archief/Depleted%20Uranium_bestanden/(CONGENITAL%20ANOMALIES).htm
Depleted uranium has been described by the U.S. military laboratory
responsible for studying its effects thusly:
"Delayed reproductive death was observed for many generations following
exposure to DU, Ni, or gamma radiation. While DU stimulated delayed
production of micronuclei up to 36 days after exposure, levels in cells
exposed to gamma-radiation or Ni returned to normal after 12 days. There
was also a persistent increase in micronuclei in all clones isolated from
cells that had been exposed to nontoxic concentrations of DU. These studies
demonstrate that DU exposure in vitro results in genomic instability
manifested as delayed reproductive death and micronuclei formation." (J
Environ Radioact. 2003;64(2-3):247-59.)
"Published data from [the U.S. Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute]
have demonstrated that DU exposure ... is both neoplastically transforming
and genotoxic.... Data demonstrated that DU exposure (50 micromolar, 24 h)
induced a significant elevation in dicentric frequency" (Radiat Prot
Dosimetry.
2002;99(1-4):275-8.)
"In the current study we demonstrate that DU can generate oxidative DNA
damage and can also catalyze reactions that induce hydroxyl radicals in the
absence of significant alpha particle decay. Experiments were conducted
under conditions in which chemical generation of hydroxyl radicals was
calculated to exceed the radiolytic generation by ONE MILLION- -fold....
These data not only demonstrate that DU at pH 7 can induce oxidative DNA
damage in the absence of significant alpha particle decay, and also suggest
that DU can induce carcinogenic lesions, e.g. oxidative DNA lesions...." (J
Inorg Biochem. 2002 Jul 25;91(1):246-52.) I have capitalized "ONE MILLION"
because Medline has wrongly abstracted it as "10(6)", which is incorrect
notation for the number 10[superscripted 6] as appears in the original.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
10 [du-list] Corporate Manslaughter Bill UK
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:30:32 -0800
How bout companies that manufacture DU weapons or the agencies that use
them (MoD)?
Draft Corporate Manslaughter Bill
Trades Union Congress (U.K.)
November 25, 2004
_http://www.tuc.org.uk/h_and_s/tuc-9037-f0.cfm_
[For an archive of articles and documents concerning criminal
prosecution of employers who knowingly endanger workers, visit
http://www.nycosh.org/health_safety_rights/CriminalProsecution.htm]
The Government announced, in the Queen’s speech on 23rd November, that
it intended to publish a draft bill which would introduce a new offence
of corporate manslaughter.
The TUC believes that the Government announcement is a result of the
pressure that has been put on it by the TUC, trade unions, and
campaigning organisations such as the Simon Jones Memorial Campaign and
the Centre for Corporate Accountability.
Overview of draft bill
The Government says that the draft Bill, which will apply to England and
Wales, would set out proposals designed to tackle the difficulties that
currently arise when prosecuting large corporations for the present
offence of manslaughter.
The draft bill will create a new offence that targets very serious
failings in the strategic management of a company's activities that have
resulted in death. The government aim is to focus on wider management
failings within an organisation. At present, liability hinges on the
conduct of one individual at the very top of a company.
The new offence would cover deaths at work and the Government has
indicated it will be clearly linked to existing health and safety
legislation.
The Government has made it clear that the bill will target corporate,
not individual, liability. It states 'The new offence would not require
an individual to be guilty of particular conduct and would not therefore
be a suitable basis for prosecuting individual directors or others. But
where a particular person is themselves directly to blame, prosecution
on an individual basis will remain possible for existing offences.'
TUC view
The TUC supports any new offence which makes it easier to prosecute a
company, or other employing organisation, where a death occurs at work,
or as a result of a work activity.
Every week an average of five workers are killed at work. Almost all of
these are a result of management failures, and all of them are
avoidable. These are killings that are caused by employers and it is
high time that something was done to bring to account the people who
cause these deaths.
At present it is necessary to show a director or senior manager of a
organisation is liable. This requires evidence of "gross negligence",
and without that there is no case against a organisation. This means
that unless a senior manager can be found guilty of manslaughter a
company can get away without facing charges. This is a particular
problem with big companies.
The new offence will help prevent this. However it will only be
successful if it also provides for effective penalties. It is likely
that the draft bill will simply allow for an organisation to be fined.
Because a company or public body cannot be sent to prison, we believe
that a range of innovative sentencing approaches should be considered to
cut the death toll at work from its current unacceptable level of five a
week. These include corporate probation and more innovative financial
penalties.
The TUC also believes that the Government must, either through this bill
or separately look at the responsibilities of directors. The Home
Secretary announced last year that his proposals on corporate killing
will cover companies, but not individual directors. However, it is not
companies that are responsible for killing workers, it is people.
Workplace fatalities are avoidable and are usually caused by fundamental
health and safety shortcomings throughout the organisation which can
properly be laid at the door of the Managing Director, Board of
Directors, Chief Executive, etc as appropriate.
We want to avoid scapegoating of front line employees or middle
managers, but it is fundamental that criminal liability for management
applies not only to the corporate body or undertaking concerned, but
also to owners, directors, and very senior personnel who are ultimately
responsible for the management failure. We hope that the Government will
consider the issue of director’s responsibilities, either as part of the
draft bill, or in a parallel process.
It is also important that the new laws apply to everyone, including the
civil service. He hope the government is not going to hide behind Crown
Immunity, and that the draft bill will ensure that where a government
department or agency is responsible for a death at work it is
prosecuted. A successful prosecution can be important for the relatives
of the victim of a workplace fatality. There is no logical, legal or
moral case for leaving Crown bodies exempt from prosecution where they
have caused workplace fatalities. The TUC would even like the draft bill
to be used to remove Crown Immunity from all health and safety offences.
The process
The Draft Bill will be subject to a process known as pre-legislative
scrutiny. The Government publishes a number of Bills each parliamentary
session in draft form, before they are introduced in Parliament as
formal Bills.
The purpose of pre-legislative scrutiny is to take evidence on the
policy underlying draft Bills, and to consider whether bills can be
improved before they are introduced into Parliament. A Parliamentary
Scrutiny Committee will consider the draft Bill. As yet it is not known
what type of committee to set up, who will serve on it or how long it
will spend considering the Bill. 'Pre-legislative scrutiny' means that
interested organisations and individuals have the opportunity to submit
written evidence to the committee, which will also hold oral evidence
sessions in public.
However as soon as the draft bill is published interested organisations
may only have a few weeks to prepare evidence for the committee.
No timetable has yet been announced, but the TUC hopes that the draft
bill will be published at the earliest possible opportunity so that it
can complete its committee stage prior to any election being called.
We will be calling for a final Bill to be introduced into parliament in
the next Parliamentary session.
We have already waited for too long for legislation It is seven years
since a new law was first proposed by this government This is one the
last promises of Labour’s manifesto to be implemented and every year the
Government delays, companies who, through their management failings kill
people, continue to evade justice and families of those who die at work
are denied justice.
[For an archive of articles and documents concerning criminal
prosecution of employers who negligently kill or seriously injure
workers, visit
http://www.nycosh.org/health_safety_rights/CriminalProsecution.htm]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bennett
Public Affairs Director, New York Committee for Occupational Safety and
Health
275 7th Avenue, 8th floor, New York NY 10001
jbennett@nycosh.org
Tel: 212-627-3900 ext. 14
Fax: 212-627-9812
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
11 [du-list] Report on bank investment in DU weapons
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:31:18 -0800
Hello, this in from Mother Earth Begium (below) Great work!!
I have uploaded the report to the Du-list file section on the
Yahoogroups website. Unfortunately, you do have to become a member of
yahoo to have access to these files. However, membership is free and to
become one is painless. There are several other reports in the file
section you might also find interesting.
In solidarity,
Tara
Dear friends,
For the past year, four Belgian organisations (the 'bankwatch organisation'
Netwerk Vlaanderen and the peace movements Forum voor Vredesactie, Vrede
and For Mother Earth) have been running the campaign 'My Money. Clear
Conscience?'. This campaign denounced the fact that banks are using their
clients' money to invest in the weapon industry.
During that year of campaigning, two reports were released. These reports
show the investments in (controversial) weapon systems (including depleted
uranium) by the 5 most prominent international bank groups in Belgium.
These reports caused a lot of commotion within the Belgian public, press
and financial sector. At this moment, the campaign has already reached some
very important and concrete results and we expect some new positive
evolutions in the near future.
Until now, the information on this campaign was only available in Dutch,
but now the second report on investments in controversial weapon systems
(cluster bombs, nuclear weapons, landmines and uranium weapons) is also
released in English (and in French). You can find this report in the
file section on
Yahoogroups website at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/files/
Pasted below you can also find an article with an overview of the campaign
and its results so far.
How can your organisation contribute?
Make the campaign public!
We would like to ask your organisation to make the campaign public by using
your own information channels.
For example you could publish an article in your magazine, on your website.
You could also put the pdf-file of the report on your website or put a link
on it to
http://www.netwerk-vlaanderen.be/actie/dossierwapensengelsdef.pdf
We could provide you with an English/French update on the campaign results
on a regular basis (for example every 4 months)
Increase the pressure on the banks!
Furthermore, it would be interesting if your organisation could put some
more pressure on the banks to stop investing in uranium weapons. For
example you could send a letter to contacts that we have made within the
different banks. We can send you a list with these contact details.
We hope that you are interested in this campaign. Don't hesitate to contact
us for more information, or if you have further questions.
In peace,
David Heller
For Mother Earth,
Member of Friends of the Earth International
Maria Hendrikaplein 5
9000 Gent
Belgium
tel: +32 (0)9 242 87 52
fax: +32 (0)9 242 87 51
email: david@motherearth.org
http://www.motherearth.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*My Money. Clear Conscience?*
One year of successful campaigning in Belgium against weapon investments
by financial institutions
Before the start of the campaign ‘My Money. Clear Conscience?’ weapon
investments by banks were not a hot item in Belgium. Not in the press,
not in public opinion and certainly not within the financial sector itself.
At this moment, after one year of campaigning, the situation has totally
changed. In October 2003 the Bankwatch organisation Netwerk Vlaanderen
and the peace movements Forum voor Vredesactie, Vrede and For Mother
Earth released a revealing report on investments in the weapon industry
by the 5 most prominent banking groups in Belgium (AXA, Dexia, Fortis,
KBC and ING). By means of direct action, debates, political pressure and
petitions, the banks were called on to stop these investments. Because
none of the banks showed any intention of changing their policy, a
second report was released in April 2004. This new report revealed
information on investments in controversial weapon systems. The campaign
managed to get good press coverage and is still managing to do so,
including some long items on prime time radio and TV. Public opinion was
obviously shocked. Politicians were not only taking a position, but also
taking concrete initiatives. The item of weapon investments is certainly
on the agenda of the highest levels within the Belgian banking sector.
After one year, the campaign not only achieved some statements of
intentions and promises from the banks, but also some concrete changes.
An overview after one year ‘My Money. Clear Conscience?’ in Belgium.
*1. **The banks*
Generally speaking the banks’ reactions to the campaign only started
getting into their stride after the second research report was released
(April 2004). This report revealed the banks were investing in
controversial weapon systems like landmines, cluster bombs, nuclear
weapons and uranium weapons. At this moment only one of the five banks
that were the focus of the report has not made any move. An overview:
*AXA* is a French financial group which is very active on the Belgian
market. From the beginning of the campaign AXA reacted very negatively
to the campaign demands. AXA has no intention of changing anything in
their weapon investment policy.
The most striking reactions by AXA were for example:
/“I will never start avoiding investments in the weapon industry because
AXA doesn’t have the right to choose in place of the shareholders”/
(Henri de Castries, president AXA)
/“There will never be codes of conduct or criteria on weapon investments
within AXA.”/ (Elly Bens, spokeswoman AXA Bank Belgium)
*KBC*, market leader in the Belgian market of Asset Management, has
until now been changing their policy the most drastically.
*KBC* will no longer invest in anti-personnel mines and cluster bombs
producers. More specifically, this means that KBC will no longer give
credits to these producers and will no longer buy shares in these
producers. What’s more, the investment funds which KBC is offering to
their clients will also no longer contain shares in these producers. KBC
argues that it will no longer invest in these specific weapon systems
because the use of these weapons caused disproportionate civilian
suffering in times of war and conflict during the last 50 years. A
particular weapon systems is excluded by KBC when there is an
international consensus on this issue. Concerning anti-personnel mines
this consensus has lead to the International Treaty of Ottawa (1997).
Concerning cluster bombs KBC concluded there was an international
consensus due to the existence of a broad international coalition of 85
NGO’s, the Cluster Munition Coalition.
Companies in which KBC will no longer invest include Singapore
Technologies Engineering, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Thales, EADS, ATK.
There is a chance that in the near future KBC will exclude more weapon
systems from their investment portfolio, based on the same criteria.
Furthermore, KBC has stopped an important credit facility to Mecar.
Mecar is a Belgian ammunition company that has Saudi Arabia as their
most important client. Mecar’s parent company is the American-based
Allied Defense Group.
*Dexia* is a French-Belgian bank which calls itself ‘the bank of
sustainable development’. At first they claimed to have no investor
relations with the weapon industry. Despite these claims, research by
Netwerk Vlaanderen revealed investments by Dexia in arms producers, even
in producers of controversial weapon systems.
In the meantime and under pressure of the campaign, Dexia has excluded
Singapore Technologies Engineering (STE) out of its investment funds.
STE is, amongst other things, a producer of anti-personnel mines. More
recently, Dexia has sold the shares of BAE Systems and EADS it held in
its own portfolio. But these companies are not excluded from Dexia’s
investment funds that are offered to clients.
Dexia lacks a real policy concerning weapon investments at this moment.
This is in marked contrast with their earlier claims (see above), but
also with the statements made by Dexia’s CEO, Pascal Richard, at the
Annual General Meeting of Shareholders (May 2004). At that meeting Mr.
Richard argued for a cut back of Dexia’s existing investments in the
weapon industry. Mr. Richard also promised that Dexia would play an
active role in the development of codes of conduct within the banking
sector on this topic.
*ING* is a major world player on the international financial market,
based in the Netherlands. ING is also one of the five prominent market
players in Belgium. ING claims to have strict guidelines on financing
specific weapon systems, like landmines and nuclear weapons. So far, ING
has refused to make the content of these guidelines public.
The 2 reports released by Netwerk Vlaanderen seem to prove that the
guidelines are not so strict, on the contrary.
At the ING Annual General Meeting of Shareholders (April 2004) the
president, Ewald Kist, said he was not informed about, for example,
investments by his bank group in a Singaporean anti-personnel mines
producer. But he formally answered that any investments in that company
would be stopped. At the same meeting, he also argued that he did not
want ING to be involved in investments in weapons of mass destruction
(as for example nuclear weapons, note of the author of this article).
Meanwhile ING did an internal investigation on their investments in
Singapore Technologies Engineering, and in the autumn of 2004 ING will
stop its investments in that company.
But ING seems to have totally forgotten about its promises on nuclear
weapons.
*Fortis* is a Belgian bank-insurance group and is the biggest
Belgian-based company. Fortis was the only bank who dared to attend a
public debate with Netwerk Vlaanderen in May 2004.
At this moment it has not changed its weapon investment policy pointing
any way. But at the Fortis Annual General Meeting of Shareholders the
CEO, Mr. Herman Verwilst, set the objective of such a policy change:
/“Fortis doesn’t want to be involved in the finance of controversial
weapons (also called ‘dirty weapons’)”/. At this moment it’s totally
unclear which weapons Fortis will concern as being ‘dirty’ and which
investments will be stopped. At the public debate (May 5th 2004) Fortis
gave itself one year to develop a serious weapon investment policy.
Fortis Bank is the first bank that promises to cope with this matter in
a transparent way and to communicate clearly on this policy.
*/Conclusion/*: there has been a lot of movement on this topic in the
Belgian bank sector. With continued pressure on these banks we believe
more successes can be reached within the near future.
*2. **Politics*
*/Will financing landmines be illegal soon?/*
In Belgium any kind of financing of anti-personnel mines (APM’s) will
soon be explicitly illegal.
That is at least if the parliament will adopt the law proposal that’s
been submitted on this topic. The likely result of the parliamentary
debate on this proposal is not yet clear at all.
Since 1975 landmines have caused 1 million victims. Most of the time the
casualties are innocent civilians. Research by Netwerk Vlaanderen
reveals that the five most prominent bank groups in Belgium are indeed
investing in landmine producers. The Ottawa Treaty, which Belgium has
ratified and promoted actively, forbids any kind of support to the Anti
Personnel Mine (APM) industry. Nearly all experts state that finance
should be considered as a completely improper form of support according
to the Ottawa Treaty. But to be sure about this, jurisprudence would be
needed.
/A first step: no investments in APM’s./
Belgium didn’t wait passively. Urged by the result of Netwerk Vlaanderen
‘s research they introduced a law that forbids the investment in APM’s
by investment funds.
After taking a pioneering role in the development of the strong
international law on this subject, Belgium the Belgian government is
very sensitive on this topic. Senator Philippe Mahoux (PS, French
Speaking Socialist Party) considers it as unacceptable that funds that
invest in APM producers are offered to the public in Belgium, while
because Belgian law forbids any production, use or distribution of
APM’s. During the discussion in the Senate on this law amendment, the
Belgian Minister of Finance, Mr. Reynders (MR, French speaking liberal
party), acknowledged “it would be absurd not to take action against
these investments.”
It’s quite strange that there seems to be some reservations concerning
concrete measures that need to be taken. For example, the proposed
prohibition on APM investments is only imposed on some kind of
investment funds. The so-called ‘index funds’ are exempt.
A possible extension of the law to investments in other controversial
weapon systems was also not approved.
/No finance of APM’s?/
A new law proposal by Mahoux will extend the prohibition to any kind of
financial products and transactions. The aim is to forbid any kind of
finance for APM’s. A landmine victim doesn’t care if that landmine is
financed by an investment fund or by a bank credit.
The proposal is an amendment to the law concerning weapon production,
trade and storage, which would prohibit the financing of ‘illegal’
weapons. Moreover, the white wash law (against money laundering) would
be amended. Money involved in APM finance would be treated like money
involved in terrorism, illegal trafficking in drugs or humans, ….
This law proposal still has to be debated. We’re looking forward to the
result.
Christophe Scheire en Inez Louwagie
Campaigners
Netwerk Vlaanderen vzw
Belgium
Tel 0032 2 201 07 70
Fax 0032 2 201 06 02
www.mymoneyclearconscience.be
christophe.scheire@netwerk-vlaanderen.be
inez.louwagie@netwerk-vlaanderen.be
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
12 NEWS.com.au: Australia may have sold WMD plans
[http://news.com.au] > [http://news.com.au] > STORY
Byron Kaye November 30, 2004
AUSTRALIA might have "innocently" exported nuclear technology to
parties with weapons of mass destruction programs, Defence
Minister Robert Hill said today.
Senator Hill did not specify whether it was state or non-state
bodies that may have obtained Australian-sourced goods, but he
urged all South-East Asian nations to closely monitor their
exports of "dual-use" goods.
"They can be exported quite innocently and there have been
suggestions that some may have been exported from Australia
innocently that have been used within WMD, at least research
programs," he said.
He described the goods as "nuclear-area technologies that can
have legitimate non-threatening value, but at the same time can
be used within a nuclear weapons program".
He had no reports of such products being obtained by terrorist
organisations.
Senator Hill's comments came as Greenpeace accused the federal
government of supporting Lucas Heights-based company Silex
Systems Ltd in its research of laser-based enrichment of uranium.
A new report from the environment group claimed research by
Silex, which has 2000 sq m of floorspace at the taxpayer-funded
Australian Nuclear Science &Technology Organisation, could
inadvertently help the spread of nuclear weapons.
The Government's support set a "dangerous double standard that
erodes international efforts to stop the proliferation of nuclear
weapons-related technology," Greenpeace campaigner James Courtney
said.
Senator Hill would not comment specifically on Silex.
"Any company that is exporting a dual-use or potential dual-use
technology from Australia that falls within the definitions
within our legislation requires export approval and we examine
that very carefully," Senator Hill said.
"We look at the record of the intended recipient, the state and
company or institution that's receiving those technologies, and
sometimes we give guidance to the company.
"Sometimes under our legislation we simply advise them that the
export will not be permitted."
Australia's system for monitoring exports was "quite
sophisticated" and "we would like to see our efforts in that
regard reciprocated by all states within our region".
Senator Hill also told delegates from 19 countries at a
Proliferation Security Initiative meeting in Sydney that
Australia was committed to ensuring "the most effective controls
on trade in dual-use goods".
The entire South-East Asia region must improve efforts to combat
the spread of WMDs, Senator Hill said.
AAP
Herald Sun
Copyright 2004 News Limited. All times AEDT (GMT+11).
*****************************************************************
13 Bellona: The Russian nuclear fleet might disappear in 10 years
The Russian navy is incapable to provide the necessary military
presence of Russia in the world oceans.
2004-11-26 16:58
According to the daily Nezavisimaya Gazeta, the Russian navy can
hardly take part in the international actions of humanitarian and
military character. This was stated at the external meeting of
the Russian Federation Council committee on defence and security
in Murmansk region in the end of October. The representatives of
the navy commanders and navy shipyards also took part in the
meeting. The participants complained about scarce financing of
the arms state program for 2001-2010.
They also stated that the quantity of the submarines equipped
with nuclear missiles reduced dramatically. Only Typhoon
submarines and 7-8 Delta-III and Delta-IV remain in service. But,
according to the experts from the Federation Council, they will
be taken out of service and decommissioned during next 10 years.
Despite the plans to launch production of the fourth-generation
submarines of Yury Dolgoruky type with Bulava-30 missile system,
the current construction of the multipurpose nuclear submarines
of Akula class and project 677 submarines is put on hold.
The state of the Russian surface ships is also bad. At present
only five cruisers are in service. Some experts from the Defence
Ministry and the Navy Headquarters believe the time for such big
ships is over. The small destroyers should substitute the
cruisers. The Russian navy, however, has not more than 10
destroyers available. Moreover, multipurpose ship Stereguschy was
laid down in St Petersburg in 2001, and Soobrazitelny – in 2003.
The navy is supposed to receive the first ship in 2005. The other
destroyers can enter service depending on the state financing of
the shipbuilding program.
According to the experts’ estimations, the Russian navy receives
only 14% from the total budget of the Defence Ministry, what does
not allow the navy to develop its shipbuilding programs and even
to support the existing ships. Due the money shortages, missile
cruisers Admiral Nakhimov and Admiral Lazarev are in sad plight.
The same reason can lead to the situation in 2010 when 100% of
the support vessels will not follow the safety requirements of
the Russian Ship Register. The tankers, dry-cargos, tug boats
etc. supporting the battle ships have from 2 to 3 lifetime
extensions. Some of the are dangerous at sea: the navy
single-hull tankers are not allowed to enter international ports
and straits. The support fleet needs also significant investments
otherwise the Russian battle ships will lose the supplies in the
world oceans, reports Novaya Gazeta.
Today the Russian navy is based on enthusiasm and the previous
experience of the navy officers. The navy lacks education centres
for the mariners. Low educated conscripts are incapable to serve
complicated modern equipment. The Russian navy has only 24% of
the contract seamen and sergeants due to the poor wages and
severe living conditions. The participants of the meeting
concluded that if the navy programs not to be fully financed then
the Russian navy would never be able to defend the interests of
Russia in the World Ocean, Nezavisimaya Gazeta reports.
Publisher: [bellona@bellona.no] , President:
[frederic@bellona.no] Information: [info@bellona.no] , Technical
contact: [webmaster@bellona.no] Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00
Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo,
Norway
*****************************************************************
14 ComputerWeekly: IAEA needs funds to update ageing systems
[http://www.computerweekly.com]
Tuesday 30 November 2004
IAEA needs funds to update ageing systems
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is struggling to
raise funds to overhaul the computer system it uses to ensure
civil nuclear programmes are not exploited for military uses.
IAEA inspectors are complaining that delays caused by their
existing hardware and software, which dates from the 1970s,
hamper their ability to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.
The databases at the IAEA's Vienna headquarters contain detailed
and confidential information on past inspections of 900 sites
worldwide.
Livio Costantini, manager for the agency's nuclear "safeguards"
division, said, "Extracting information can take hours and days,
making timely analysis of relevant safeguards data difficult and
expensive."
The agency uses an IBM mainframe running alongside Microsoft SQL
servers and Software AG's Adabas database management system
Adabas.
The growth in concern about terrorism and countries such as North
Korea were loading additional IT demands on the already stretched
system. "A major overhaul of the system is needed to allow
inspectors immediate, secure online access to safeguard
information," he added.
The IAEA has called on member countries to contribute $10m
(Ł5.3m) towards the upgrade.
*****************************************************************
15 Xinhuanet: 10th ASEAN Summit closes in Vientiane -
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2004-11-30 23:40:22
VIENTIANE, Nov. 30 (Xinhuanet) -- The two-day 10th summit of
the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) closed here
Tuesday evening.
Speaking at a news conference of the conclusion of the
summit, Bounnhang Vorachith, chairman of the current summit and
prime minister of Laos, said that at the summit, the ASEAN
leaders exchanged views on regional and international political
and economic issues, including terrorism, the Korean Peninsula,
the Middle East and Iraq.
He said the ASEAN leaders strongly condemned the recent
terrorist acts and reaffirmed their firm determination to
strengthen their cooperation to prevent adverse impact caused by
the terrorist acts on the ASEAN countries, and called for the
international community to support and assist ASEAN's efforts in
countering terrorism.
He said the ASEAN leaders reaffirmed their commitment to a
peaceful and comprehensive solution to the nuclear problems on
theKorean Peninsula, and agreed that there is a need to continue
the discussions to promote mutual confidence and common approach.
In this connection, the ASEAN leaders called on all parties
concernedto reconvene the six-party talks at the earliest
possible date.
The leaders expressed their concern on the violent situation
inthe Middle East and called for the creation of an independent
Palestinian State along with the Israeli State that will lead the
Middle East to a lasting peace.
They also expressed their concern on the grave situation in
Iraq and called for the holding of an election as scheduled, and
reaffirmed their position that the United Nations must continue
toplay a central role in the reconstruction and rehabilitation of
Iraq, Bounnhang told the news conference. Enditem
Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
16 IAEA: IAEA Director General Press Briefing, 25 November 2004
+ [IAEA.ORG :: Atoms for Peace]
Media Advisory 2004/15
IAEA Director General Press Briefing, 25 November 2004
IAEA Headquarters, Vienna
[M. ElBaradei] 25 November 2004 |
Director General Mohamed ElBaradei briefed the press on the
Agency´s verification work in Iran, South Korea, and Brazil,
before the opening of the IAEA Board of Governors meeting in
Vienna this week. Following is an unofficial transcript of his
remarks:
Iran
On Iran I am going to report that we have completed our work
with regard to the verification of the suspension with one
exception, and that is the request by Iran to exempt 20
centrifuges for R without using nuclear materials.
This is an issue which we are still discussing with the Iranian
authorities and I hope that I will be able to update the Board
on this issue in the next hours or day.
We are making good progress. It was difficult at the beginning
but since December of last year we have seen an appreciable
improvement in co-operation, access to sites, and access to
information. Therefore we are now in a position to say that
declared materials in Iran have not been diverted but we still
have a lot of work to do with regard to possible undeclared
material or activity.
This is usually a long-term process. We would expect to take a
longer time in Iran because of the undeclared nature of the
programme for many years. To speed that process I look to Iran
to demonstrate full transparency and full co-operation. We are
on the right track but we still have a lot of work to do. We
understand much better Iran's programme now, but as I have
stated before, the jury is still out on our ability to provide
assurance that everything has been declared to us.
We are working three fronts.
1. Verification. We are continuing to ask Iran for access to
sites, both on the basis of the Additional Protocol, and on the
basis of transparency, to build confidence;
2. Suspension. Again this is an important confidence building
measure, and I hope that the remaining one issue on complete
suspension will resolve itself in the next 24 hours or so; and
3. The third dimension is the European negotiations with Iran
to look into the underlying issues of tension, sanctions and
security. We are aware of what is going on between Europe and
Iran because these three aspects of interaction are reinforcing
each other.
Republic of Korea
With regard to the Republic of Korea (South Korea), we are
saying that although the materials have not been significant,
the nature of the activities, enrichment and reprocessing are a
matter of serious concern. However, we are also saying that we
have not seen any continuation of these experiments, which is
the good news.
Brazil
We have been able to reach an agreement in principle with the
Brazilian government on a safeguards approach to verify the
enrichment facilities in Brazil, at the Resende facility. An
approach which will enable us to do credible inspections but at
the same time take care of Brazil´s need to protect certain
commercial sensitivity inside the facility. That approach has
been, as I have said, agreed on principle and I expect in the
next couple of weeks, to be finalized in a formal way.
Press Contacts
Mark Gwozdecky
Director and Spokesperson
Division of Public Information
[43-1] 2600-21270
[43] 664-154-6989 (mobile)
m.gwozdecky@iaea.org [m.gwozdecky@iaea.org]
Melissa Fleming
Head, Media & Outreach Section
Spokesperson
Div. of Public Information
[43-1] 2600-21275
[43] 664-325-7376 (mobile)
m.fleming@iaea.org [m.fleming@iaea.org]
About the IAEA
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) serves as the
world's foremost intergovernmental forum for scientific and
technical co-operation in the peaceful use of nuclear
technology. Established as an autonomous organization under the
United Nations (UN) in 1957, the IAEA carries out programmes to
maximize the useful contribution of nuclear technology to
society while verifying its peaceful use.
NOTE TO EDITORS: For additional information visit the Press
Section of the IAEA's website
(http://www.iaea.org/Resources/Journalists/), or call the IAEA's
Division of Public Information at (431) 2600-21270.
Copyright 2003-2004, International Atomic Energy Agency, P.O.
Box 100, Wagramer Strasse 5, A-1400 Vienna, Austria
Telephone (+431) 2600-0; Facsimilie (+431) 2600-7; E-mail:
Official.Mail@iaea.org [Official.Mail@iaea.org]
Disclaimer
*****************************************************************
17 AU ABC: Greenpeace expresses Australian nuclear concerns
[http://www.abc.net.au/]
This is a transcript from The World Today. The program is
broadcast around Australia at 12:10pm on ABC Local Radio.
You can also listen to the story in REAL AUDIO
The World Today - Tuesday, 30 November , 2004 15:17:48
Reporter: Jayne-Maree Sedgman
ELEANOR HALL: While UN inspectors may have failed to find any
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Greenpeace has today
expressed concerns such weapons could be manufactured in
Australia.
The environmental group has released a report which, it says,
reveals the full extent of the Federal Government's support for a
classified uranium enrichment project at the Lucas Heights
nuclear facility in Sydney.
Greenpeace says a little known company called Silex is using the
facility to develop a process to enrich uranium with the aid of
lasers.
But the Defence Minister, Robert Hill, says rigorous safeguards
are in place to ensure the technology is not misused.
Jayne-Maree Sedgman reports
JAYNE-MAREE SEDGMAN: Not a lot is known about the privately-owned
company Silex, and that has Greenpeace worried - that and the
fact that Silex technology is considered so sensitive it's been
classified by both the United States and Australian Governments.
The company maintains its research is simply designed to find
more efficient ways to enrich uranium, which would then be used
to generate electricity in nuclear power plants.
Former Australian Diplomat and author of Fact or Fission, the
Truth about Australia's Nuclear Ambitions, Richard Broinowski,
has welcomed Greenpeace's report. He's told reporter Nick Grimm
there are good reasons to be worried.
RICHARD BROINOWSKI: The point is that it's disingenuous to say
that Silex are only producing or only experimenting for civil
purposes.
JAYNE-MAREE SEDGMAN: Professor Broinowski says the secrecy alone
suggests something less than innocent is going on.
RICHARD BROINOWSKI: Look I don't think nothing untowards is going
on, you can't just say that laser technology for enrichment for
commercial purposes - that's less than 20 per cent U2-25 - is
something that is innocent, it's not. If you've got a new laser
technology which uses less power, less capital costs than either
centrifuge or gas use diffusion, it's a magnet for countries who
wish to enrich uranium 235 for weapons.
JAYNE-MAREE SEDGMAN: Defence Minister Robert Hill, who happened
to be addressing a major international meeting on the illicit
trade in WMD today, refused to be drawn on Silex's specific
activities.
ROBERT HILL: Well I don't think it's appropriate for me to refer
to particular companies, what I'm saying to you is that dual use
is an area that is of concern because there can be a very
legitimate purpose for the export of the product. We in Australia
- I've given you the example of the biological science are for
example - have encouraged the development of products and tools
that bring economic advantage to us and can also bring major
scientific benefit to the wider community.
JAYNE-MAREE SEDGMAN: Senator Hill says any company that exports
dual use or potential dual use technology from Australia requires
high-level approval and, he says, strict criteria govern that
approval.
ROBERT HILL: We look at the record of the intended recipient -
the state and the company or institution that's receiving those
technologies - and sometimes we give guidance to the companies,
sometimes under our legislation we simply advice them that the
export will not be permitted and whilst we don't claim that our
system is perfect, it is quite sophisticated.
We would like to see our efforts in that regard reciprocated by
all states within our region and that we work with each other to
limit the chances of a dual use technology being inappropriately
used.
ELEANOR HALL: Defence Minister Robert Hill ending that report by
Jayne-Maree Sedgman. [ border=] PRINT FRIENDLY EMAIL STORY
[http://www.abc.net.au/privacy.htm]
*****************************************************************
18 RE: [NukeNet] Hydrogen, Via Nuke Power, Production Method
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:48:42 -0800
This report might be of interest to folks trying to "demystify" hydrogen.
84173a.jpgMaking Sense of Hydrogen: The Potential Role of Hydrogen in
Achieving a Clean, Sustainable Transportation System
October 7, 2004
National Association of State PIRGs
841754.jpg Download
the full report. | News
release.
Rob Sargent
Senior Energy Policy Analyst
National Association of State PIRGs & affiliated organizations
44 Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
P: 617-747-4317
F: 617-292-8057
C: 617-312-7546
rsargent@pirg.org
www.pirg.org
Arizona PIRG * CALPIRG * Environment California * CoPIRG * Environment
Colorado * ConnPIRG * Florida PIRG * Georgia PIRG* Iowa PIRG* Illinois
PIRG* INPIRG * Environment Maine * MaryPIRG * MASSPIRG * PIRGIM * MoPIRG *
MontPIRG * NHPIRG * NJPIRG Citizen Lobby * NMPIRG * NYPIRG * NCPIRG *
OhioPIRG* Oregon State PIRG * PennPIRG * PennEnvironment * RIPIRG * TexPIRG
* U.S. PIRG * VPIRG * WashPIRG * WISPIRG
-----Original Message-----
From: Nukenet-bounces@energyjustice.net
[mailto:Nukenet-bounces@energyjustice.net]
On Behalf Of Bill Smirnow
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 1:51 AM
To: Bill Smirnow
Subject: [NukeNet] Hydrogen, Via Nuke Power,Production Method Could Bolster
Fuel Supplies
Mothersalert: http://www.mothersalert.org
http://www.mothersalert.org/moreinfo.html
1. Hydrogen Production Method Could Bolster Fuel
Supplies
2. Project Aims to Develop Hydrogen Power
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/28/politics/28hydrogen.html?oref=login
Hydrogen Production Method Could Bolster Fuel
Supplies
By MATTHEW L. WALD
Published: November 28, 2004
ARTICLE TOOLS
E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Format
Most E-Mailed Articles
Reprints & Permissions
TIMES NEWS TRACKER
Topics
Alerts
Atomic Energy
Energy Department
Energy and Power
Oil (Petroleum) and
Gasoline
Track news that interests
you.
ASHINGTON, Nov. 27 - Researchers at a
government nuclear laboratory and a ceramics
company in Salt Lake City say they have found a
way to produce pure hydrogen with far less energy
than other methods, raising the possibility of
using nuclear power to indirectly wean the
transportation system from its dependence on oil.
The development would move the country
closer to the Energy Department's goal of a
"hydrogen economy," in which hydrogen would be
created through a variety of means, and would be
consumed by devices called fuel cells, to make
electricity to run cars and for other purposes.
Experts cite three big roadblocks to a hydrogen
economy: manufacturing hydrogen cleanly and at low
cost, finding a way to ship it and store it on the
vehicles that use it, and reducing the
astronomical price of fuel cells.
"This is a breakthrough in the first part,"
said J. Stephen Herring, a consulting engineer at
the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory, which plans to announce the
development on Monday with Cerametec Inc. of Salt
Lake City.
The developers also said the hydrogen could
be used by oil companies to stretch oil supplies
even without solving the fuel cell and
transportation problems.
Mr. Herring said the experimental work
showed the "highest-known production rate of
hydrogen by high-temperature electrolysis."
But the plan requires the building of a new
kind of nuclear reactor, at a time when the United
States is not even building conventional reactors.
And the cost estimates are uncertain.
The heart of the plan is an improvement on
the most convenient way to make hydrogen, which is
to run electric current through water, splitting
the H2O molecule into hydrogen and oxygen. This
process, called electrolysis, now has a drawback:
if the electricity comes from coal, which is the
biggest source of power in this country, then the
energy value of the ingredients - the amount of
energy given off when the fuel is burned - is
three and a half to four times larger than the
energy value of the product. Also, carbon dioxide
and nitrogen oxide emissions increase when the
additional coal is burned.
Hydrogen can also be made by mixing steam
with natural gas and breaking apart both
molecules, but the price of natural gas is rising
rapidly.
The new method involves running electricity
through water that has a very high temperature. As
the water molecule breaks up, a ceramic sieve
separates the oxygen from the hydrogen. The
resulting hydrogen has about half the energy value
of the energy put into the process, the developers
say. Such losses may be acceptable, or even
desirable, because hydrogen for a nuclear reactor
can be substituted for oil, which is imported and
expensive, and because the basic fuel, uranium, is
plentiful.
The idea is to build a reactor that would
heat the cooling medium in the nuclear core, in
this case helium gas, to about 1,000 degrees
Celsius, or more than 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit.
The existing generation of reactors, used
exclusively for electric generation, use water for
cooling and heat it to only about 300 degrees
Celsius.
The hot gas would be used two ways. It would
spin a turbine to make electricity, which could be
run through the water being separated. And it
would heat that water, to 800 degrees Celsius. But
if electricity demand on the power grid ran
extremely high, the hydrogen production could
easily be shut down for a few hours, and all of
the energy could be converted to electricity,
designers say.
The goal is to create a reactor that could
produce about 300 megawatts of electricity for the
grid, enough to run about 300,000 window
air-conditioners, or produce about 2.5 kilos of
hydrogen per second. When burned, a kilo of
hydrogen has about the same energy value as a
gallon of unleaded regular gasoline. But fuel
cells, which work without burning, get about twice
as much work out of each unit of fuel. So if used
in automotive fuel cells, the reactor might
replace more than 400,000 gallons of gasoline per
day.
The part of the plan that the laboratory and
the ceramics company have tested is
high-temperature electrolysis. There is only
limited experience building high-temperature
gas-cooled reactors, though, and no one in this
country has ordered any kind of big reactor, even
those of more conventional design, in 30 years,
except for those whose construction was canceled
before completion.
Another problem is that the United States
has no infrastructure for shipping large volumes
of hydrogen. Currently, most hydrogen is produced
at the point where it is used, mostly in oil
refineries. Hydrogen is used to draw the sulfur
out of crude oil, and to break up hydrocarbon
molecules that are too big for use in liquid fuel,
and change the carbon-hydrogen ratio to one more
favorable for vehicle fuel.
Mr. Herring suggested another use, however:
recovering usable fuel from the Athabasca Tar
Sands in Alberta, Canada. The reserves there may
hold the largest oil deposits in the world, but
extracting them and converting them into a
gasoline substitute requires copious amounts of
steam and hydrogen, both products of the reactor.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/science/AP-Hydrogen-Fuel.html
Project Aims to Develop Hydrogen Power
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: November 29, 2004
ARTICLE TOOLS
E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Format
Most E-Mailed Articles
1. Signs of a Glut and
Lower Prices on Thin TV's
2. Repeat Caesareans
Becoming Harder to Avoid
3. Op-Ed Columnist: Blood
Is Thicker Than Gravy
4. Internet Access,
Delivered From Above
5. Frank Rich: The Great
Indecency Hoax
Go to Complete List
Filed at 8:08 p.m. ET
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- A government
laboratory and a private company announced a $2.6
million project Monday to develop hydrogen in a
nuclear reactor using a process with the potential
to one day trim the country's reliance on fossil
fuels.
High temperature electrolysis could become
economically feasible by using the next generation
of nuclear reactors to split water into hydrogen
and oxygen, said officials with Ceramatec Inc. and
the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory.
``We have been able to show that we can
produce hydrogen at commercially attractive rates
in a very small unit and at conditions that are
typical of a high temperature, helium-cooled
reactor,'' said laboratory researcher Steve
Herring.
The sample, about the size of a paperback
book, had its successful test in a pottery kiln
used to simulate the high temperatures created by
the next generation of nuclear reactors -- about
1,800 degrees Fahrenheit.
Researchers said the process of obtaining
hydrogen by splitting water using electric energy
has been known for about 150 years. Its high cost
in dollars and electric energy made it an
unpopular choice.
``High temperature electrolysis has the
potential to change that by reducing the amount of
electrical energy required and using a proportion
of thermal energy in its place,'' said Joseph
Hartvigsen of Ceramatec.
The Energy Department is hoping for a
demonstration of commercial-scale hydrogen
production using the process by 2017.
Researchers admit it would be decades before
hydrogen power and its infrastructure are as
commonplace as refineries and gas stations.
Herring said the most immediate use of hydrogen
using the new process would be to upgrade
poor-quality petroleum for use as motor fuel, and
then synthesizing existing fuels that cars can
use, like gasoline, diesel and jet fuel.
It's estimated a 300-megawatt reactor could
provide the power to run 300,000 homes or provide transportation for about
500,000 people. Herring estimated Americans use one gallon of gasoline per
person per day.
``That's a quarter of a billion gallons of
gasoline use, so it's important to make a dent in
that,'' he said.
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here:
http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
Attachment Converted: 84173a.jpg: 00000001,398977f1,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: 841754.jpg: 00000001,398977f2,00000000,00000000
*****************************************************************
19 [BATN] Researchers claim hydrogen production breakthrough
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 23:47:30 -0000
Published Sunday, November 28, 2004, in the New York Times
Hydrogen Production Method Could Bolster Fuel Supplies
By Matthew L. Wald
WASHINGTON -- Researchers at a government nuclear laboratory and
a ceramics company in Salt Lake City say they have found a way to
produce pure hydrogen with far less energy than other methods,
raising the possibility of using nuclear power to indirectly wean
the transportation system from its dependence on oil.
The development would move the country closer to the Energy
Department's goal of a "hydrogen economy," in which hydrogen would
be created through a variety of means, and would be consumed by
devices called fuel cells, to make electricity to run cars and for
other purposes. Experts cite three big roadblocks to a hydrogen
economy: manufacturing hydrogen cleanly and at low cost, finding a
way to ship it and store it on the vehicles that use it, and
reducing the astronomical price of fuel cells.
"This is a breakthrough in the first part," said J. Stephen Herring,
a consulting engineer at the Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory, which plans to announce the development
on Monday with Cerametec Inc. of Salt Lake City.
The developers also said the hydrogen could be used by oil companies
to stretch oil supplies even without solving the fuel cell and
transportation problems.
Mr. Herring said the experimental work showed the "highest-known
production rate of hydrogen by high-temperature electrolysis."
But the plan requires the building of a new kind of nuclear reactor,
at a time when the United States is not even building conventional
reactors. And the cost estimates are uncertain.
The heart of the plan is an improvement on the most convenient way
to make hydrogen, which is to run electric current through water,
splitting the H2O molecule into hydrogen and oxygen. This process,
called electrolysis, now has a drawback: if the electricity comes
from coal, which is the biggest source of power in this country,
then the energy value of the ingredients -- the amount of energy
given off when the fuel is burned -- is three and a half to four
times larger than the energy value of the product. Also, carbon
dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions increase when the additional
coal is burned.
Hydrogen can also be made by mixing steam with natural gas and
breaking apart both molecules, but the price of natural gas is
rising rapidly.
The new method involves running electricity through water that has
a very high temperature. As the water molecule breaks up, a ceramic
sieve separates the oxygen from the hydrogen. The resulting hydrogen
has about half the energy value of the energy put into the process,
the developers say. Such losses may be acceptable, or even
desirable, because hydrogen for a nuclear reactor can be substituted
for oil, which is imported and expensive, and because the basic
fuel, uranium, is plentiful.
The idea is to build a reactor that would heat the cooling medium in
the nuclear core, in this case helium gas, to about 1,000 degrees
Celsius, or more than 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit. The existing
generation of reactors, used exclusively for electric generation,
use water for cooling and heat it to only about 300 degrees Celsius.
The hot gas would be used two ways. It would spin a turbine to make
electricity, which could be run through the water being separated.
And it would heat that water, to 800 degrees Celsius. But if
electricity demand on the power grid ran extremely high, the
hydrogen production could easily be shut down for a few hours, and
all of the energy could be converted to electricity, designers say.
The goal is to create a reactor that could produce about 300
megawatts of electricity for the grid, enough to run about 300,000
window air-conditioners, or produce about 2.5 kilos of hydrogen per
second. When burned, a kilo of hydrogen has about the same energy
value as a gallon of unleaded regular gasoline. But fuel cells,
which work without burning, get about twice as much work out of each
unit of fuel. So if used in automotive fuel cells, the reactor might
replace more than 400,000 gallons of gasoline per day.
The part of the plan that the laboratory and the ceramics company
have tested is high-temperature electrolysis. There is only limited
experience building high-temperature gas-cooled reactors, though,
and no one in this country has ordered any kind of big reactor, even
those of more conventional design, in 30 years, except for those
whose construction was canceled before completion.
Another problem is that the United States has no infrastructure for
shipping large volumes of hydrogen. Currently, most hydrogen is
produced at the point where it is used, mostly in oil refineries.
Hydrogen is used to draw the sulfur out of crude oil, and to break
up hydrocarbon molecules that are too big for use in liquid fuel,
and change the carbon-hydrogen ratio to one more favorable for
vehicle fuel.
Mr. Herring suggested another use, however: recovering usable fuel
from the Athabasca Tar Sands in Alberta, Canada. The reserves there
may hold the largest oil deposits in the world, but extracting them
and converting them into a gasoline substitute requires copious
amounts of steam and hydrogen, both products of the reactor.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/kgOolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Email article texts/URLs for posting to .
Manage your subscription by sending a blank email message to:
BATN-subscribe@yahoogroups.com to subscribe,
BATN-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com to unsubscribe,
BATN-digest@yahoogroups.com to switch email to digest mode,
BATN-normal@yahoogroups.com to switch email to normal mode,
BATN-nomail@yahoogroups.com to switch email delivery off.
See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATN for web access & archives.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATN/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
BATN-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
20 Times Business: Scheme to save British Energy near completion
[http://www.timesonline.co.uk]
December 01, 2004
By Angela Jameson, Industrial Correspondent
BRITISH Energy’s shares could relist in mid-January if the last
stage of the nuclear group’s tortuous restructuring goes to plan.
The energy group, which provides a fifth of the UK’s electricity,
is proposing a debt-for-equity swap that will remove about Ł1
billion of debt and Ł3 billion of other liabilities from the
company’s balance sheet.
British Energy plans to present its restructuring plan to the
Scottish High Court on January 14. With the court’s approval, the
company could re-list its shares on the London Stock Exchange as
early as Monday January 17. The stock was delisted on October 21.
The power station owner finally sent out restructuring documents
to its shareholders yesterday after a two-year gap since Patricia
Hewitt, the Trade and Industry Secretary, sanctioned the rescue
package.
In that time the group has had to overcome a European Commission
inquiry and a campaign by rebel shareholders to overturn the
plan.
With time running out on the company’s standstill agreement with
creditors, British Energy said yesterday that it had been given
the all-clear to extend the deadline for the financial
restructuring to March 31 next year as a precaution.
Shareholders will get to vote on the restructuring proposals on
December 22 at the group’s second extraordinary meeting in three
months. Court approval is also required for the restructuring to
proceed.
Mike Alexander, chief executive, urged shareholders to back the
plan. He insisted that the nuclear group had a viable future once
the restructuring plan was in place. “There have been many
advisers looking at the ‘what ifs’ and they feel that we have
adequate working capital going forward,” he said.
The chief executive, who joined the group in 2002 from British
Gas, said that the executive team planned to step up investment
in the plant significantly once the restructuring was complete.
In future, British Energy will spend Ł250 million a year on
capital investment, compared with about Ł120 million under the
previous executive team.
Part of the company’s viability going forward will depend on
British Energy’s ability to improve the inefficiency of its
nuclear power stations, which have been blighted in recent years
by unplanned outages, caused by ageing parts and materials. Of
the company’s eight nuclear power stations, only three will still
be in operation by 2015 under current plans.
British Energy also said that it would begin a “smarter” trading
strategy so that it could take advantage of future rises in
wholesale electricity prices.
The group failed to cash in on recent price rises because it had
sold most of its production on forward contracts.
The Times and The Sunday Times.
Copyright 2004
*****************************************************************
21 NRC: NRC Davis-Besse Oversight Panel to Meet Dec. 6 in Ohio
News Release - Region III - 2004-05 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs, Region III
No. III-04-050 November 30, 2004
CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663
Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov
[opa3@nrc.gov]
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Davis-Besse Oversight Panel
will meet with FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company officials
on Monday, Dec. 6, in Oak Harbor, Ohio, to review recent
operating performance and NRC inspection activities at the
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant.
The plant resumed operation in March after a two-year shutdown
to replace the reactor vessel head and make other safety system
and staff performance improvements. The NRC Oversight Panel was
formed in 2002 to coordinate the agencys regulatory activities
in response to the problems at Davis-Besse; during the shutdown
and startup process it held monthly public meetings with the
utility and continues to meet approximately bimonthly.
The meeting will be held at 6 p.m. at the Davis-Besse
Administration Building, 5501 N. State Route 2. 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 staff will also
be available after the meeting for informal discussions with the
public.
We expect to hear from utility officials how they assess their
performance since the last oversight panel meeting in
September, said John Grobe, Chairman of the NRC Oversight
Panel. In addition, we will discuss the independent performance
assessments being performed at the plant as well as findings of
recent NRC inspections.
A transcript of the oversight panel meeting will be posted in
several weeks on the NRC's web site - http://www.nrc.gov. Select
"Davis-Besse/Reactor Vessel Head Degradation" from the Key
Topics menu.
The NRC oversight panel includes NRC managers and staff from
offices in Lisle, Illinois; Rockville, Maryland; and 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.
Last revised Tuesday, November 30, 2004
*****************************************************************
22 NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
FR Doc 04-26357
[Federal Register: November 30, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 229)]
[Notices] [Page 69638-69639] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr30no04-91]
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: DOE/NRC
Form 741, Nuclear Material Transaction Report; DOE/NRC Form 740M,
Concise Note; and NUREG/BR-0006, Instructions for Completing
Nuclear Material Transaction Reports (DOE/NRC Forms 741 and
740M).
2. Current OMB approval number: DOE/NRC Form 741: 3150-0003 and
DOE/NRC Form 740M: 3150-0057.
3. How often the collection is required: DOE/NRC Form 741: As
occasioned by special nuclear material or source material
transfers, receipts, or inventory changes that meet certain
criteria.
Licensees range from not submitting any forms to submitting over
5,000 forms annually.
DOE/NRC Form 740M: As necessary to inform the U.S. or the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of any qualifying
statement or exception to any of the data contained in any of the
other reporting forms required under the US/IAEA Safeguards
Agreement. On average, 15 licensees submit about 10 forms each
per year--150 forms annually.
4. Who is required or asked to report: Persons licensed to
possess specified quantities of special nuclear material or
source material, and licensees of facilities on the U.S. eligible
list who have been notified in writing by the Commission that
they are subject to Part 75.
5. The estimate of the number of annual respondents: DOE/NRC Form
741: 400. DOE/NRC Form 740M: 15. 6. The number of hours needed
annually to complete the requirement or request: DOE/NRC Form
741: 45,813 hours for NRC and Agreement State licensees (or an
average of 1.25 hours per response); DOE/NRC Form 740M: 113 hours
(or an average of .75 hours per response).
[[Page 69639]] 7. Abstract: NRC and Agreement State licensees are
required to make inventory and accounting reports on DOE/NRC Form
741 for certain source or special nuclear material, or for
transfer or receipt of 1 kilogram or more of source material.
Licensees affected by Part 75 and related sections of Parts 40,
50, 70, and 150 are required to submit DOE/NRC Form 740M to
inform the U.S. or the IAEA of any qualifying statement or
exception to any of the data contained in any of the other
reporting forms required under the US/IAEA Safeguards Agreement.
The use of Forms 740M and 741, together with NUREG/BR-0006
Revision 6, the instructions for completing the forms, enables
NRC to collect, retrieve, analyze as necessary, and submit the
data to IAEA to fulfill its reporting responsibilities.
Submit, by January 31, 2005, 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, MD
20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide
Web site:
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comm
ent/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 (T-5 F52), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-7233, or by
Internet electronic mail to [INFOCOLLECTS@NRC.GOV] . Dated at
Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of November 2004.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 04-26357 Filed 11-29-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
23 NRC: Sunshine Act; Meeting
FR Doc 04-26447
[Federal Register: November 30, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 229)]
[Notices] [Page 69639-69640] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr30no04-93]
DATES: Weeks of November 29, December 6, 13, 20, 27, January 3,
2004.
PLACE: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland.
STATUS: Public and closed.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Week of November 29, 2004 There are no
meetings scheduled for the week of November 29, 2004.
Week of December 6, 2004--Tentative Tuesday, December 7, 2004
9:30 a.m. Briefing on Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Program
(Public Meeting) (Contact: Corenthis Kelley, 301-415-7380.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web
Address--http://www.nrc.gov
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov] .
Wednesday, December 8, 2004 12:55 p.m. Affirmation Session
(Public Meeting) (Tentative). a. Motion to Quash Ol Subpoena
(Tentative). b. Duke Energy Corp. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units
1 and 2); Intervenor's Motion for Reconsideration of CLI-04-29
(Tentative).
1 p.m. Briefing on Status of Davis Besse Lessons Learned Task
Force Recommendations (Public Meeting) (Contact: John Jolicoeur,
301-415- 1724).
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web
address--http://www.nrc.gov
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov] .
Thursday, December 9, 2004 2 p.m. Briefing on Reactor Safety and
Licensing Activities (Public Meeting) (Contact: Steve Koenick,
301-415-1239).
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web
address--http://www.nrc.gov
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov] .
Week of December 13, 2004--Tentative Tuesday, December 14, 2004 1
p.m. Briefing on Emergency Preparedness Program Initiatives
(Public Meeting) (Contact: Nader Mamish, 301-415-1086).
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web
address--http://www.nrc.gov
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov] .
Week of December 20, 2004--Tentative There are no meetings
scheduled for the week of December 20, 2004.
Week of December 27, 2004--Tentative There are no meetings
scheduled for the week of December 27, 2004.
Week of January 3, 2005--Tentative There are no meetings
scheduled for the week of January 3, 2005.
*The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on
short notice. To verify the status of meetings call
(recording)--301-415- 1292.
[[Page 69640]] Contact person for more information: Dave
Gamberoni, 301-415-1651.
* * * * * The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the
Internet at:
http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-making/schedule.html
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-makin
g/schedule.html] . * * * * * The NRC provides reasonable
accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate.
If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these
public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or
other information from the public meetings in another format
(e.g., braille, large print), please notify the NRC's Disability
Program Coordinator, August Spector, at 301-415-7080, TDD:
301-415- 2100, or by e-mail at aks@nrc.gov [aks@nrc.gov] .
Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be
made on a case-by-case basis.
* * * * * This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred
subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like
to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the
Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition,
distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system, is
available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission
meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic
message to dkw@nrc.gov [dkw@nrc.gov] . Dated: November 24, 2004.
Dave Gamberoni, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 04-26447 Filed 11-26-04; 9:23 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
*****************************************************************
24 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: U.S. wants KEDO plans abandoned
December 01, 2004 ¤Ń WASHINGTON ˇŞ On the first anniversary of
the suspension of an international project to build nuclear
reactors in North Korea to generate electricity, the United
States has repeated that it wants to terminate construction of
the plants.
The board of the Korea Peninsula Energy Development
Organization, or KEDO, said last week that construction would
remain suspended for a second year. The future of the project
will be decided again before next December, KEDO said. In the
meantime, it said, "The preservation and maintenance work both
on site and off site will continue."
In response to a query about the project, the U.S. State
Department said, "KEDO executives on Nov. 25, 2004, decided to
continue its suspension of the light water reactor project in
North Korea for one additional year beginning Dec. 1, 2004. The
United States has repeatedly made clear it sees no future for
the light-water reactor project."
As a result of a 1994 agreement, the United States, the
European Union, South Korea and Japan agreed to build two
light-water reactors in the North, in return for a freeze by
Pyeongyang of its nuclear development programs. The project has
been funded principally by Seoul and Tokyo.
Nuclear tension on the Korean Peninsula revived in 2002 when it
was revealed that North Korea had violated international
agreements by secretly pursuing a nuclear arms building program.
The development led to the KEDO suspension.
South Korea, which covers 70 percent of the multibillion-dollar
construction of two 1,000-megawatt reactors, has been urging
that the project be kept alive. Japan, which pays another 20
percent of the cost, also wants the project to be suspended, not
scrapped.
by Kang Chan-ho, Ser Myoja myoja@joongang.co.kr>
[http://joongangdaily.joins.com/faq.html]
Copyright by Joins.com, Inc. Terms of Use |
*****************************************************************
25 Brattleboro Reformer: VY makes 'Dirty Dozen' toxics list
November 30, 2004 Brattleboro, VT
By CAROLYN LORIé
Reformer Staff
BRATTLEBORO -- Executives at Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee
received an award Monday but not one they will be eager to
display in the company's lobby.
The nuclear power plant was named one of the "Dirty Dozen" by
Toxics Action Center, a New England non-profit that works with
communities threatened by toxic pollution.
Vermont Yankee was chosen because of the possibility of
increased toxic waste and the security risk posed by the proposed
20 percent power boost.
"It's time for Nils Diaz [commissioner of the NRC] and the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission to step up to the plate and defend
the safety of Vermont residents by rejecting [Vermont Yankee's]
proposed power hike," said Alicia Raymond, field organizer with
Toxics Action Center.
For the last eight years, the organization has solicited
nominations for the biggest public health threats in New England.
A selection committee made up of academics, attorneys and
activists then chooses those they consider the biggest threats
and awards them a framed Dirty Dozen certificate. There were more
than 35 nominations this year.
Vermont Yankee was nominated by the nuclear power watchdog group
the New England Coalition, which has been a vocal opponent of the
proposed uprate.
The certificate was "presented" on Monday afternoon, by
representatives from Toxics Action Center, the New England
Coalition, Citizens Action Network and Traprock Peace Center. The
sparsely attended presentation ceremony was held in the Robert H.
Gibson River Garden on Main Street.
The award was mailed to Jay Thayer, site vice president of
Vermont Yankee, on Monday afternoon.
Rob Williams, spokesman for the nuclear reactor, said the
"award" was undeserved.
"Our operation over the years has kept Vermont's air clean,
while providing for a third of the state's electricity and it's
our responsibility to do our best to safely ensure that the
plant's environmental benefits continue," said Williams.
He went to say that as global warming continues, most
environmentalists will come out in support of nuclear power.
But environmentalists at Monday's ceremony showed no signs of
switching sides.
"This hangs over our heads all the time," said Peter Alexander,
executive director of the coalition. "Entergy is all too happy to
take the profits out of the state and the region...but the risks
are all here."
Other northern New England sites named to the Dirty Dozen
included IBM's Essex Junction plant and the Wheelabrator trash
incinerator in Claremont, N.H.
For a full listing of the 2004 Dirty Dozen go to
www.toxicsaction.org [http://www.toxicsaction.org] . For more
information about Entergy Corporation visit www.entergy.com
[http://www.entergy.com]
Copyright ©1999-2004 New England Newspapers, Inc., a
*****************************************************************
26 APP.COM: Big guns needed to shut reactor
ASBURY PARK PRESS
Published in the Asbury Park Press 12/01/04An Asbury Park Press
editorial
The state Assembly Environment Committee will hold a public
hearing tomorrow night on the 20-year license renewal being
sought for the Oyster Creek nuclear generating plant in Lacey.
While the decision on renewal rests with the federal Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, the best hope for heading it off is a
well-coordinated coalition that includes the state and the
state's federal lawmakers as key partners. We hope all those
partners will be on hand at the hearing.
Oyster Creek's license should not be renewed beyond its 2009
expiration date. The security, health and environmental risks
associated with the aging plant far outweigh the modest benefits
of keeping it open. We hope the hearing, set for 7 p.m. at the
Brick Civic Plaza, will give rise to an Assembly resolution that
will put the full weight of the Legislature and acting Gov. Codey
behind efforts to shut Oyster Creek permanently. And we hope it
will help debunk the myths perpetuated by Oyster Creek's
supporters that the shutdown of the plant would be devastating
for Lacey taxpayers and the region's economy, and produce energy
shortfalls in New Jersey.
Lacey officials continue to insist that the township would
suffer severe financial hardships if Oyster Creek were closed
down. Not true. Lacey receives an annual $11.5 million subsidy
from the state for hosting the plant. State law requires that the
subsidy be granted in perpetuity, with annual adjustments for
inflation, whether the plant remains open or not.
Oyster Creek's proponents -- almost all of whom either live in
Lacey or work for, or lobby on behalf of, Oyster Creek owner
AmerGen -- also insist that the shutdown would cause severe
damage to the region's economy. The concerns are grossly
overstated. If the plant were to be decommissioned, it would take
a decade or more to complete the work, and many of the plant's
present workers would be needed to do so. Job losses could be
largely absorbed through attrition and transfers to parent
company Exelon's other plants.
AmerGen officials also have tried to convince the public that
Oyster Creek's continued operation is crucial to meeting New
Jersey's energy needs. Hardly. The state Board of Public
Utilities says the loss of energy from the reactor would be more
than offset by natural gas plants expected to come online well
before 2009. Oyster Creek, which has the eighth smallest
generating capacity of the nation's 103 reactors, supplies just 1
percent of the power to the regional grid of which New Jersey is
a part.
The opposition to license renewal from local, state and federal
officials has been building in recent months. In July, then-Gov.
James E. McGreevey called on Oyster Creek to permanently close
when its operating license expires. That same month, Rep. H.
James Saxton, R-N.J., whose district includes Lacey, said he
wouldn't support a license extension until an independent study
by the National Academy of Sciences showed that the plant could
operate safely beyond 2009. Saxton later introduced a bill that
would require the NRC to take into account a variety of factors
now excluded from the review process. Rep. Christopher H. Smith,
R-N.J., whose district also includes parts of Ocean County,
recently came out against license renewal.
Unfortunately, we haven't heard much from New Jersey's senators,
Jon Corzine or Frank Lautenberg, on the issue. Neither has taken
a position. It's time for them to get off the sidelines and join
the fray. Codey, McGreevey's successor, also has yet to announce
his stance on Oyster Creek. But tomorrow's hearing was called by
one of his confidants, Assemblyman John F. McKeon, D-Essex,
chairman of the Assembly Environment Committee. That could be a
good omen.
The fight to shut Oyster Creek down can be won. But New Jersey
needs Codey, Corzine and Lautenberg to help it do battle. They
need to take a stand now.
*****************************************************************
27 [du-list] "equivalent of nearly 250,000 Nagasaki bombs"
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:31:31 -0800
equivalent of nearly 250,000 Nagasaki bombs
used in this item.
Author can be contacted thro' links herewith.
db
** Dahr Jamail's Iraq Dispatches **
** http://dahrjamailiraq.com - link of the week at MichaelMoore.com **
November 29, 2004
International Weapons Conventions in Iran, Iraq
By: Omar Khan
In no less than hundreds of articles over the past few weeks, our press
has tirelessly reported on Iran's uranium enrichment program, or
rather-in characteristic shorthand-on "Iran's efforts to develop the
capability to make nuclear weapons" (Foreign Affairs, 11/24). Early on
the morning of the November 29th, however, in "Iran Backs Away From a
Demand on A-Bomb Fuel," the New York Times announced that a settlement
between Iran and Britain, France, and Germany (EU-3) had been reached:
Iranians had agreed to suspend all research on uranium enrichment. One
hopes that with this agreement, daily scrutiny of hypothetical Iranian
weapons might also give way to some observations of actual American
weapons being deployed nearby.
For by many accounts, the use of unconventional weapons has likely been
a US pastime in "The War on Terror" during even its most recent
episodes. Dahr Jamail of Inter Press News Service has recorded Fallujan
experiences of poison gas and bombs that "exploded into large fires that
burnt the skin even when water was thrown on the burns"-a trademark of
napalm and phosphorus bombs. Though many Americans will no doubt say
such claims are dubious, they have reason to: no outside medical
personnel or observers have yet been allowed into Fallujah to even allow
for further discussion of the matter. Less dubious is the continued use
of depleted uranium munitions, which as Vishnu Bhagwat, former Indian
Chief of Naval Staff, has written amounted in 2003 alone to the
equivalent of nearly 250,000 Nagasaki bombs. But depleted uranium is
nothing new, having been used extensively in southern Iraq during the
first Gulf War. The Department of Environmental Engineering at the
University of Baghdad has accordingly measured radiation levels in and
near the city of Basra to range from hundreds to thousands of times the
normal levels. Dr. Jawad Kadhim Al-Ali, Director of the Oncology Center
in Basra, has theorized depleted uranium as a reason that the death rate
from cancers in Basra has now reached 19 times that of 1988. It was also
in Basra that a previous study led by Dr. Alim Yacoup found the
incidence of leukaemia among children to have doubled between 1990 and
1999. Perhaps it is such reports that have led Dr. Asaf Durakovic, the
nuclear-medicine expert of the Veterans' Administration, to characterize
DU as a "threat to humanity." According to an oft cited August 2002 UN
report, the use of DU munitions breaches the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, the UN Charter, the Genocide Convention, the Convention
against Torture, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, the Conventional
Weapons Convention of 1980, and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.
In relation to the situation in Iran, one is reminded of the saying that
history is written by the victors: while the New York Times writes of
Iran's "long history of concealment" in its relation to international
weapons conventions, there is little need for such concealment by United
States Government for its violations of such conventions as they go
almost entirely unreported. This double standard at work in the
application of such conventions is emphasized by a closer look at the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the basis for the present attention on
Iran. Article 4(1) says that "Nothing in this Treaty shall be
interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the
Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for
peaceful purposes"; Article 4(2) says that "All the Parties to the
Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in,
the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and
technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy," it
goes on, "with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas
of the world." It would seem that the United States, rather than Iran,
would be bound by the terms of the treaty, which obligate it-as a
signer-to undertake to facilitate the fullest possible exchange of
equipment, materials, and so forth to Iran, one such developing country
of the world. According to the aforementioned New York Times article,
like all other coverage of the standoff in this country, such an
exchange was of course not a right, much less a possibility. That right
was instead Iran's "demand," one that last week "came in two letters to
the International Atomic Energy Agency from Iran's atomic energy agency,
whose hard-liners oppose any concessions to outsiders." But as these
hard-liners, like other Iranians, have apparently conceded to their US
and European watch dogs, the question arises with regard to Iraq, where
any comparable watch dogs can be found to concede to. Principle two of
the Nuremburg Tribunal tells us that "the fact that internal law does
not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under
international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from
responsibility under international law." A dying hope of Iraqis today
would not be so ambitious as to imagine respite in the face of our
longstanding war crimes, but instead an interruption of the silence that
sanctions them.
_______________________________________________
(c)2004 Dahr Jamail.
All images and text are protected by United States and international
copyright law. If you would like to reprint Dahr's Dispatches on the web,
you need to include this copyright notice and a prominent link to the
DahrJamailIraq.com website. Any other use of images and text including, but
not limited to, reproduction, use on another website, copying and printing
requires the permission of Dahr Jamail. Of course, feel free to forward
Dahr's dispatches via email.
More writing, photos and commentary at http://dahrjamailiraq.com
You can visit http://dahrjamailiraq.com/email_list/ to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the email list.
Iraq_Dispatches mailing list
http://lists.dahrjamailiraq.com/mailman/listinfo/iraq_dispatches
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
28 [du-list] Homefront DU
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:30:19 -0800
Can anybody suggest a discussion forum similar to MTP, but focused on
civilian DU, like DU shielding in dentists', chiropractors' and
osteopaths' X-ray cameras and possibly protective aprons? These are
in our own consumer environment.
(Federal legalese talks of X-ray shielding in the "Healing Arts".) I
have been studying this in my spare time for 1-1/2 years, and have
some interesting leads, even own a Geiger counter now to get my own
readings, but find little willingness to be explicit in the "healing
arts". Much of the accessible information is in regulatory texts,
which are difficult to decipher for their legal implications.
There are human rights and professional ethics issues, whether this
technology is legitimate, if nobody was asked about it and nobody is
told about it explicitly.
Roger Belling
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
29 [du-list] weapons type use in Fallujah - & D notice
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:48:34 -0800
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/11/302074.html
USA napalms Fallujah, Chinook downed, UK Govt issues D-notice (Unverified)
Tomato, 29.11.2004 22:17
It appears that the USA have started using napalm in Fallujah, and that
heavy fighting is still continuing.
Why has coverage of the continuing resistance in Fallujah disappeared from
the british media?
Has the government served a D-notice? [offical censorship notice]
It appears that questions were asked in Parliamnent last night about the
use of napalm, and Tony Blair was forced to defend himself.
I looked at Hansard (the daily record of Parliamentary debates) to verify
this, but it appears that yesterday's Hansard has not yet been made available.
Check if it's online yet
at http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm/cmhansrd.htm
Following is the source article reporting napalm in Fallujah, followed by
an article covering the continued heavy fighting (including the downing of
a large US Chinook helicopter on sunday, over a US occupied part of Fallujah.)
-Tomato-
Daily Mirror, UK, Sunday 28th Nov 2004
http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=14920109&method=full&siteid=106694&headline=fallujah-napalmed-name_page.html
FALLUJAH NAPALMED
Nov 28 2004
US uses banned weapon ..but was Tony Blair told?
By Paul Gilfeather Political Editor
US troops are secretly using outlawed napalm gas to wipe out remaining
insurgents in and around Fallujah.
News that President George W. Bush has sanctioned the use of napalm, a
deadly cocktail of polystyrene and jet fuel banned by the United Nations in
1980, will stun governments around the world.
And last night Tony Blair was dragged into the row as furious Labour MPs
demanded he face the Commons over it. Reports claim that innocent civilians
have died in napalm attacks, which turn victims into human fireballs as the
gel bonds flames to flesh.
Outraged critics have also demanded that Mr Blair threatens to withdraw
British troops from Iraq unless the US abandons one of the world's most
reviled weapons. Halifax Labour MP Alice Mahon said: "I am calling on Mr
Blair to make an emergency statement to the Commons to explain why this is
happening. It begs the question: 'Did we know about this hideous weapon's
use in Iraq?'"
Since the American assault on Fallujah there have been reports of "melted"
corpses, which appeared to have napalm injuries.
Last August the US was forced to admit using the gas in Iraq.
A 1980 UN convention banned the use of napalm against civilians - after
pictures of a naked girl victim fleeing in Vietnam shocked the world.
America, which didn't ratify the treaty, is the only country in the world
still using the weapon.
******************************
Update On Fallujah: Calm Gives Way To Neighborhood Clashes
http://www.jihadunspun.com/intheatre_internal.php?article=100726&list=/home.php
Nov 29, 2004
By Muhammad Abu Nasr, Free Arab Voice and Omar Al-Faris, JUS
At sunset on Sunday Mujahideen in Fallujah bombarded the US headquarters in
the ad-Dahhami Palace west of as-Saqlawiyah with four Grad rockets, fired
in pairs. Previously on Saturday evening, the Mujahideen bombed a US
command point near the al-'Askari neighborhood of eastern al-Fallujah with
16 Grad rockets according to the Mafkarat al-Islam correspondent in the city.
According to the report, US forces occupying the governorate building in
al-Fallujah were struck by four Grad rockets when the Mujahideen opened
fire on them at 10am Sunday morning. Then at 11:30am they struck again,
hitting US forces in the as-Sakani neighborhood of the city with four more
Grad rockets. Mujahideen also fired two large Katyusha rockets at the
al-Khalij al-'Arabi [Arabian Gulf] School in the al-Jawlan neighborhood in
the northwest of the city.
The Mafkarat al-Islam correspondent inside al-Fallujah reported that
fighting broke out between the Mujahideen and the US ossupation forces in
the neighborhoods of ash-Shuhada', al-Jubayl, al-'Askari, and al-Jawlan, in
addition to the industrial zone all on Satruday night and fighting
continued until dawn on Sunday morning, although the fighting was not
particularly heavy.
An indication of the difficult conditions faced by US forces in the city is
the fact that in some neighborhoods, the US troops have taken to bulldozing
houses in the areas they continue to hold and then use the concrete blocks
and rubble to construct road blocks and barriers.
Mafkarat al-Islam's correspondent traveled from the ash-Shuhada'
neighborhood to the ad-Dubbat neighborhood without observing any US
presence en route. He then moved on to the northern edge of the
al-Muhandisin neighborhood, and there he found US presence just on the
northern extremity of the neighborhood, but nowhere else inside the
neighborhood.
No sounds of fighting were heard in the Old City of al-Fallujah on Sunday.
Another Chinook Down Near al-Fallujah
Mujahideen shot down a large US Chinook helicopter north of 'Amiriyat
Fallujah at dawn on Sunday.with a BKC machine gun. The Chinook crashed in
an area where US troops were concentrated, and therefore it was difficult
to ascertain the extent of casualties aboard the stricken aircraft.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
30 [progchat_action] FOCUS | 'Unusual Weapons' Used in Fallujah
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:15:30 -0600 (CST)
FOCUS | 'Unusual Weapons' Used in Fallujah
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/112804X.shtml
You are subscribed as: progchat_action@yahoogroups.com
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/XgSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/progchat_action/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
progchat_action-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
31 [du-list] Gulf War syndrome revisited
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:48:22 -0800
Gulf War syndrome revisited
axisoflogic.com
By Vicki Brower
Nov 28, 2004
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_13951.shtml
As troops returned home from the war in Iraq in late April,
many wondered whether some would soon fall ill, as did
thousands of those who fought in the first Gulf War (GWI) in
1991. During the past 12 years, nearly half of the 700,000
GWI veterans have sought treatment for a wide range of
symptoms that many suspect were linked to exposure to
depleted uranium, pesticides, vaccines, particulate matter
and gases from burning oil wells, biological and chemical
weapons, and the anti-nerve-gas drug pyridostigmine bromide
(PB). About 29% of soldiers who were deployed are now
considered to be disabled due to their wartime service, 23%
are receiving disability benefits, and tens of thousands of
the rest are still plagued by illness, but do not fall into
these categories because of the lack of a clear-cut diagnosis.
For more than a decade, soldiers were told that no single
cause, except stress, could explain complaints as diverse as
headaches, dizziness, fatigue, bone and joint pain, memory
loss, problems with sleep and concentration, muscle
weakness, skin rashes and sores, and gastrointestinal
problems. The US government cited statistics that showed
that GWI veterans were not dying or being hospitalized at
higher rates than other soldiers. However, it could not
explain how stress could wreak such havoc on health, or why
GWI veterans were being diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral
sclerosis (ALS) at twice the rate of other groups. But new
research is putting the stress diagnosis to rest and, after
12 years of desperation for the veterans, answers to the
mystery surrounding GW syndrome are being found. This should
lead not only to effective treatments, but also to more
protection for soldiers and the general population against
future military and terrorist attacks.
In June 2002, the 12-member Research Advisory Committee
(RAC) on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses released an interim
report that brought together studies pointing to several
types of neurological damage in the afflicted veterans
(http://www.va.gov/RAC-GWVI). In the following October, the
US government's
"The [US] government is finally realizing that the nature of
war is changing, and that soldiers can be damaged by weapons
other than bullets and bombs"
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) made a 180-degree
turnaround by publicly acknowledging that strong evidence
exists that many GWI veterans are suffering from brain
damage caused by different combinations of exposure to
toxins. Deputy Secretary Leo Mackay Jr admitted in an
address to the RAC that, in the past, the US government had
"a tin ear, cold heart and a closed mind" about toxic
chemical exposure and drugchemical interactions as possible
causes of GW syndrome. "The [US] government is finally
realizing that the nature of war is changing, and that
soldiers can be damaged by weapons other than bullets and
bombs," said Steve Robinson, Executive Director of the
National Gulf War Resource Center (NGWRC; Silver Spring, MD,
USA; http://www.ngwrc.org), a veterans' health advocacy
group that was founded in 1995. According to this
organization, incidences of illness in forward-deployed GWI
units are higher than those in non-deployed units; 42% of
those who entered Iraq and Kuwait are ill, as compared with
31% who served on land in support areas, and 21% who served
on ships. Length of service, as well as location, is also
significant, with longer tours correlating to more symptoms.
Along with earlier studies, evidence from research funded by
the US Department of Defense (DoD) and published in the
British Medical Journal (K. Ismail et al., 325, 576; 2002),
was, said Mackay, undeniable. The study was conducted at
three London hospitals and followed 12,000 disabled British
veterans from the Bosnian and Gulf wars. The authors had
previously hypothesized that a psychological condition,
similar to stress, was the cause of GW syndrome, but the new
study found that "post-traumatic stress disorder is not
higher in Gulf veterans than in other veterans." Under the
weight of this evidence, the DVA pledged to double the
budget for research into the illness to an annual US $20
million. Another reason for the US government's about-turn
is the recognition that the biological and chemical agents
that the soldiers encountered in the desert in 1991 are the
ones that terrorists are threatening to use against the
general population, suggested Robinson.
...the biological and chemical agents that the soldiers
encountered in the desert in 1991 are the ones that
terrorists are threatening to use against the general
population...
The Office of the Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses
(OSAGWI) was formed in 1997, but "it spent almost $250
million until 2002 without publishing any med-ical research
report or offering a single treatment program for ill GW
veterans," Robinson observed. Indeed, in 1997, the General
Accounting Office (GAO), the investigatory arm of US
Congress, reported that some researchers thought that they
would not receive funding for research into the syndrome
because of the DoD's position, and that it would be useless
to try. Of the research that has been performed, much of the
groundbreaking work was started about eight years ago by
Robert Haley of Southwestern Texas Medical School (Dallas,
TX, USA), formerly at the Centers for Disease Control
(Atlanta, GA, USA). Initially, Haley was funded by the Texan
millionaire Ross Perot. Using magnetic resonance
spectroscopy, Haley and others showed evidence of neuronal
loss in the basal ganglia and brainstems of ill soldiers,
and this research is summarized in the RAC Interim Report.
"Veterans with cognitive problems show neuronal loss in the
basal ganglia; those with muscle and joint problems show
loss in the brain stem," it states.
...all three [GW] syndromes were strongly associated with
exposure to acetylcholinesterase (AChE)-inhibiting
organophosphates or carbamates
In 1997, Haley reported that there are three primary
syndromes in GWI veterans: syndrome 1 (impaired cognition)
includes distractibility, forgetfulness, depression and
daytime somnolence; syndrome 2 (confusion-ataxia) is
characterized by more profound reduced intellectual
processing, confusion, frequent disorientation and episodes
of vertigo; syndrome 3 (central pain) is characterized by
chronic somatic pain and parethesias of the extremities.
Notably, Haley reported that all three syndromes were
strongly associated with exposure to acetylcholinesterase
(AchE)-inhibiting organophosphates or carbamates. Syndrome 1
correlates to organophosphate pesticides in flea collars;
syndrome 2 correlates to apparent low-level nerve agent
exposure and advanced side-effects of PB; and syndrome 3 is
also associated with exposure to PB and high concentrations
of DEET insect repellant. Hans Kang, of the Central Veterans
Affairs Office, surveyed 20,000 samples from deployed and
non-deployed veterans from the GWI era and found three
syndromes closely resembling those identified by Haley. He
concluded that syndrome 2 was found only in the deployed GWI
population and that these patients were most likely to be
unemployed due to their symptoms. Research at the Hebrew
University (Jerusalem, Israel) led by Hermona Soreq, PhD,
has shown that AChE-inhibitors induce the long-term
production of a variant form of an enzyme that is associated
with animals that have electrophysiological hyperactivity,
impaired working memory, hypersensitivity to head injury and
weakened muscles. Earlier work by her group showed that PB
crosses the bloodbrain barrier more easily in stressed animals.
Other key findings from the affected veterans include an
increased cold sensory threshold, abnormal audiovestibular
tests that reflect subtle damage to brainstem reflex
pathways and abnormal autonomic nervous system function,
which is shown by an atypical heart rate during sleep. This
could also explain the common complaints of poor sleep,
morning fatigue, chronic pathogen-free diarrhoea and an
increase in cholecystitis. Soldiers with syndrome 2, who had
more brain cell damage in the left basal ganglia, had higher
levels of brain dopamine production, a finding that is
compatible with the upregulation of dopamine receptors after
damage to dopaminergic pathways in basal ganglia.
Haley and others also found a genetic component to GW
syndrome. Compared with a control sample, 26 affected
veterans had much lower levels of the enzymes paraoxonase
(PON1) and butyrylcholinesterase (BChE), which are
responsible for inactivating organophosphates, and the
levels were particularly low in those with syndrome 2.
Mutation of the PON1 gene is also associated with the
development of Parkinson's disease (I. Kondo & M. Yamamoto,
Brain Research, 806, 271273; 1998). Interestingly,
sheep-dippers in the UK that had fatiguecognitive-pain
syndromes that are similar to GW syndrome and chronic
fatigue syndrome, had the same gene variant (N. Cherry et
al., Lancet, 359, 763764; 2002). Japanese researchers have
cited the same PON1 genotype in Asians as a possible
explanation for the high impact of the low-level sarin
exposures in the 1995 terrorist attack on the Tokyo subway.
All these risk factors—exposures to environmental toxins,
genetics, low-level nerve agents, depleted uranium, stress,
medical countermeasures to bio- and chemical weapons, and
combinations thereof—are also relevant to domestic terrorism
preparedness, the report notes.
As in the Vietnam War, GWI was marked by poor record-keeping
of toxic exposures, and much of what was available
mysteriously disappeared, said Robinson. Veterans who became
ill after contact with Agent Orange in Vietnam struggled for
years to get the US government to acknowledge that contact
had occurred and had a corresponding direct and negative
effect on their health. A recent study stated that two
million more gallons of Agent Orange and other defoliants
had been sprayed over Vietnam than earlier estimates
suggested (J.M. Stellman et al., Nature, 422, 681687;
2003). GWI veterans face similar systematic cover-ups of
exposures to chemical weapons and other toxins, according to
congressman Chris Shays and others. In addition to records
being destroyed, soldiers who were given vaccinations and
prophylactic PB were not always told what they were taking.
The US government's position was that toxic exposures could
not be verified because sensors in the field were
"unreliable." One source said that when marines crossed
Iraqi minefields to reach Kuwait during GWI, they were
exposed to poisonous gas. But with no accurate records, it
was impossible to say that GWI veterans were ill because of
the war-time exposures, the government said.
Only time will tell whether veterans of the second Gulf War
will suffer the same illnesses as those from the first
In 1997, the government finally admitted that soldiers were
exposed to poisonous gas when they bombed the Khamisiyah
chemical depot during GWI. The estimated numbers of those
exposed started at 100, then rose to 10,000, then 15, 000,
and finally reached 100,000. Last year, before Michael
Kilpatrick was moved from leading the OSAGWI to run the
public relations campaign for the second GW, he said that
any modelling to determine the exposure and dose rates of
poisonous gas at Khamisiyah or elsewhere was "a wild-ass
guess"—and indicated that the real number could be much
higher than 100,000. Veterans who served at Khamisiyah and
Al Jubayl (another chemical depot that was destroyed) are
37% more likely to have one or more service-connected
conditions than other veterans, according to the NGWRC.
Despite efforts to cover up the facts, the NGWRC maintains
that more than 250,000 GWI veterans received the drug PB,
which was under investigation at the time, and which the
Pentagon now admits it cannot rule out as a possible cause
of GW syndrome. Eight thousand servicemen received the
botulinum toxoid vaccine, 150,000 received the
now-controversial anthrax vaccine, and 436,000 either
entered or lived for months in areas contaminated by more
than 315 tons of toxic waste, possibly containing trace
amounts of highly radioactive plutonium and neptunium,
without awareness, protective gear or medical evaluations.
Hundreds of thousands lived outdoors near 700 burning
oil-well fires for months without protection.
Whether soldiers during the recent war in Iraq were subject
to the same or similar toxic exposures is an open question.
Only time will tell whether veterans of the second Gulf War
will suffer the same illnesses as those from the first. "If
they do, the cause this time will not be a mystery,"
Robinson said. "Now, the only mystery connected to Gulf War
syndrome is whether the Department of Defense will do what
Congress told them to do." Here, he is referring to a 1998
US law that requires that soldiers receive comprehensive
physical examinations, including blood tests, before and
after deployment. Before the war began in March, the DoD
declared that it had learned from its mistakes; the troops
were being equipped with better environmental sensors and
other testing apparatus, and better gas masks and suits. It
also said that it would assess soldiers' health using brief
questionnaires, before and after deployment. However, the
protective equipment was substandard and, according to
civilian health experts who testified in Congress on March
25, 2003, once-yearly blood tests for HIV do not fulfil the
requirements for comprehensive examinations, which should
include lab tests and X-rays immediately before and after
deployment. Two days later, at the House Armed Services
subcommittee, lawmakers noted that many soldiers did not
even fill out the questionnaires, and Robinson said that
those that did were likely to give answers that would allow
them to be deployed and remain with their units. Twelve
years after GWI, it seems that the military is making some
of the same mistakes again. However, the DoD stated on April
29, 2003, that it would provide a more comprehensive,
face-to-face examination for the returning soldiers. Calling
it a "first step", Robinson and the NGWRC are still
insisting that baseline data should have been collected.
Soldiers who are fighting terrorism around the world should
not experience the same system failures that GWI veterans
continue to face, he added.
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/embor/journal/v4/n6/full/embor874.html
--
Posted for educational and research purposes only,
~ in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 ~
NucNews Links and Expanded Archives - http://nucnews.net
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a home for your web domain?
We recommend our provider, Hosting Direct
https://support.hostingdirect.net/cgi-bin/affiliates/clickthru.cgi?id=nucnews
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
32 [du-list] Please join the emergency depleted uranium munitions
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:48:17 -0800
Please email a copy of the following petition, asking to, "join
the emergency depleted uranium munitions petition of 23 November."
mailto:leavitt.michael@epa.gov,nastri.wayne@epa.gov,du-petition@bovik.org,ohcinfo@cdc.gov,biro.susan@epa.gov,mmarty@oehha.ca.gov
[optionally cc: tara@miltoxproj.org]
Please send a copy of your message to your local congressional
delegation. Please remember to replace, "[name and address]" with
your own information. Also, you might want to omit or replace,
"As a parent of a minor daughter," with something like, "As a
relative of a Gulf War veteran," or whatever best fits your
circumstances. We are all affected, as taxpayers who pay to support
the veterans administration and other health care, public and private.
Michael O. Leavitt
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Wayne Nastri
Region 9 Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
EMERGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE PETITION FOR ISSUANCE OF NEW REGULATION
RE: DEPLETED URANIUM MUNITIONS
Dear Administrators:
I request an emergency regulation concerning the use of depleted
uranium munitions. As a parent of a minor daughter, I became an
interested person when I was informed of the significant risk of
birth defects detected in persons fathered by Gulf War veterans [1].
This request is submitted in accordance with 5 USC 553.
For the reasons [2] set forth below, I ask that the Agency
issue an emergency regulation immediately to protect those in
combat from chromosome damage and the resulting birth defects,
and to protect my family from the effects of same.
Please issue new regulations as follows to correct this
problem: "Depleted uranium burning in air or in the presence
of nitrogen-based explosives or propellants will produce toxic
uranyl nitrates, which are partially soluble and produce
six orders of magnitude more chromosome damage than would be
expected from their radioactivity alone. Please discontinue
use of depleted uranium munitions. Unlicensed use of depleted
uranium is henceforth forbidden." Please reply as soon as
possible to let me know the status of this request. Please
send me a copy of all public notices concerning this request,
including all requests for public comment, by email and by
first-class mail to the following address.
Sincerely,
[name and address]
References:
[1] Quoting from the International Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 33,
no. 1, pp. 74-86: http://ije.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/33/1/74
"Overall, the risk of any malformation among pregnancies reported
by men was 50% higher in Gulf War Veterans (GWV) compared with Non-GWVs
(NGWV).
"For musculo-skeletal malformations, the significant association
with Gulf war service was largely driven by the `other musculo-skeletal
malformations' subgroup (Odds Ratio (OR) = 3.1 [meaning a 210% increase
in observed birth defects compared to nonveterans], 95% Confidence
Interval for Odds Ratio (CI): from 1.9, to 5.1). The commonest diagnoses
within this subgroup include codes related to head size and shape
(plagiocephaly, macrocephaly, or craniosynostosis) (33 GWV/9 NGWV). The
risk of `other non-chromosomal malformations' was 70% higher among GWV,
and this was driven wholly by the group of malformations remaining when
specified syndromes were removed (OR = 3.5, 95% CI: 1.5, 8.4)....
"The risk of genital malformations was 80% higher in offspring of
GWV compared with NGWV (P = 0.04), the most common diagnosis being
hypospadias (24 GWV/10 NGWV). Risks of one or more malformation within
the urinary system (OR = 1.6, 95% CI: 1.1, 2.2), and of musculo-skeletal
system malformations (OR = 1.8, 95% CI: 1.4, 2.4), were statistically
significantly associated with paternal Gulf war service. Within the
urinary system, the risk of renal anomaly was approximately 60% higher
in the offspring of GWV and the commonest diagnosis within this subgroup
was vesico-uretero-renal reflux (32 GWV/17 NGWV).
"The risk of malformation within the digestive system as a whole
was 40% higher among offspring of GWV, the effect being driven by the
subgroup `other malformations of the digestive system' (OR = 1.6, 95%
CI: 1.0, 2.5). The three commonest diagnoses in this subgroup were
pyloric stenosis, congenital hiatus hernia, and unspecified anomalies of
the digestive system."
[2] Dr. Albrect Schott found that damage to chromosomes in the
white blood cells of Gulf War veterans was about five times greater
than the rest of the population ("Chromosome aberration analysis in
peripheral lymphocytes of Gulf War and Balkans War veterans," in
Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry, 2003;103(3):211-9.) A February, 2004, U.K.
Pension Appeal Tribunal Service decision in Edinburgh implicated
depleted uranium in birth defects of children fathered by a Gulf War
Veteran; please see:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,937902,00.html
and:
http://www.sundayherald.com/40306
Given this new information about birth defects, I don't
believe that DU weaponry represents any kind of a long-term
strategic advantage. Even if it amounted to a much greater
short-term tactical advantage, it would still, given this
evidence, mean a potentially long term poisoning of air,
people, land, and the sea. Television station KHOU, Channel
11 in Houston, Texas, reported the following in March:
"An internal Veterans Administration study shows children of
Gulf War vets have twice the normal rate of birth defects. A
Department of Defense-funded study shows children of male Gulf
War vets have three times the average rate of heart defects.
And a study just released this month shows women who served in
the first Gulf War suffered three times the normal rate of
miscarriages in the period just after the conflict."
-
http://www.khou.com/news/upclose/stories/khou040304_ds_UpCloseGulfWarDefects.52dc83ac.html
Please have a look at this reported pattern over time:
http://www.irak.be/ned/archief/Depleted%20Uranium_bestanden/(CONGENITAL%20ANOMALIES).htm
Depleted uranium has been described by the U.S. military
laboratory responsible for studying its effects thusly:
"Delayed reproductive death was observed for many generations
following exposure to DU, Ni, or gamma radiation. While DU
stimulated delayed production of micronuclei up to 36 days
after exposure, levels in cells exposed to gamma-radiation or
Ni returned to normal after 12 days. There was also a
persistent increase in micronuclei in all clones isolated from
cells that had been exposed to nontoxic concentrations of DU.
These studies demonstrate that DU exposure in vitro results in
genomic instability manifested as delayed reproductive death
and micronuclei formation." (J Environ Radioact. 2003;64(2-3):247-59.)
"Published data from [the U.S. Armed Forces Radiobiology
Research Institute] have demonstrated that DU exposure ... is
both neoplastically transforming and genotoxic.... Data
demonstrated that DU exposure (50 micromolar, 24 h) induced a
significant elevation in dicentric frequency" (Radiat Prot Dosimetry.
2002;99(1-4):275-8.)
"In the current study we demonstrate that DU can generate
oxidative DNA damage and can also catalyze reactions that
induce hydroxyl radicals in the absence of significant alpha
particle decay. Experiments were conducted under conditions
in which chemical generation of hydroxyl radicals was
calculated to exceed the radiolytic generation by ONE MILLION-
-fold.... These data not only demonstrate that DU at pH 7
can induce oxidative DNA damage in the absence of significant
alpha particle decay, and also suggest that DU can induce
carcinogenic lesions, e.g. oxidative DNA lesions...." (J Inorg
Biochem. 2002 Jul 25;91(1):246-52.) I have capitalized "ONE
MILLION" because Medline has wrongly abstracted it as "10(6)",
which is incorrect notation for the number 10[superscripted 6]
as appears in the original.
[End of References and Administrative Procedure Petition]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
33 Bellona: Fire rages aboard nuclear icebreaker in St Petersburg
A Russian nuclear icebreaker under construction since 1989 is on
fire at the Baltiysky naval yard in Saint Petersburg.
2004-11-30 15:05
It was reported by the Ria-Novosti news agency today, quoting the
emergencies ministry. About 20 fire crews battled the fire aboard
one of the ship's decks for more than two hours. All workers
aboard the vessel, The Fiftieth Anniversary of Victory, were
evacuated, according to the agency. The fire broke out this
morning in the 100 square meters storage with construction
materials. The press-department of the Baltiysky shipyard
claimed, however, the incident was insignificant and it was just
a smoke after the welding works. At 10:37 the fire was brought
under control. One worker was sent to hospital. The shipyard’s
representatives claim there is no threat of radioactive
contamination as the nuclear reactor has no fuel inside.
Director of the civil shipbuilding department of the Baltiysky
shipyard Alexander Kovalev said to ABNews.ru that the fire would
not influence the completion date of the nuclear icebreaker. In
June this year vice-director of the project on The Fiftieth
Anniversary of Victory ice-breaker construction Sergey Ivanov
said the construction might be postponed till 2006 as the 2004
budget lacks $16.4m necessary for design and installation of the
new nuclear safety system as well as for the control and
replacement of some earlier installed electromechanical
equipment. These works can require one year, daily Vecherny
Murmansk reported.
Unfinished icebreaker has already undergone repairs. It has been
in the dry dock of the Baltiysky shipyard. The specialist from
Finland and Japan took part in the stern gear repair. Total about
600 workers participated in the repair works. The representatives
of the Murmansk Shipping Company and the Russian Maritime
Register monitored the work in the dock. The nuclear icebreaker
had to be placed in dock due to the long-lasting construction
since 1989. On July 1, 2004, the ship was 93% completed. The
Russian State budget pledged $81.4 million for the icebreaker
construction from 2003 to 2005.
Publisher: [bellona@bellona.no] , President:
[frederic@bellona.no] Information: [info@bellona.no] , Technical
contact: [webmaster@bellona.no] Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00
Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo,
Norway
*****************************************************************
34 heraldtribune.com: Putting public health first
Southwest Florida's Information Leader
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
Feds, defense contractor should pay for Tallevast tests
Ultimately, the defense contractor Lockheed Martin or the federal
government should pay the costs of testing residents of the
Tallevast community for exposure to toxic beryllium dust. But,
for now, the Manatee County government should pick up the tab.
Today, the County Commission is scheduled to discuss whether to
provide $50,000 to help the local office of the state Department
of Health conduct the tests. The need is clear and urgent, and
the vote should be unanimous.
As we've said from the outset of this environmental and public
health crisis, free medical exams should be made available to
everyone who worked at or lives near the former American
Beryllium Co. plant off U.S. 301 near the Sarasota County line.
Extensive ground-water contamination has been found on and around
the plant, which manufactured nuclear-weapons components and
aircraft parts from the early 1960s through the mid-1990s.
Lockheed Martin purchased the site a decade ago and has agreed to
pay to clean up the pollution. But residents have largely been
left in the dark about health risks.
The tests for beryllium exposure are an important first step.
Plant workers are known to have inhaled the fine black dust and
are likely to have carried it on their clothing to their homes
and other places in the community.
Manatee officials are commendably stepping into the void to help
pay for the initial round of tests. More exams will be needed,
however, and both the federal government and Lockheed Martin need
to step up their commitment --swiftly and decisively.
Last modified: November 30. 2004 12:00AM
*****************************************************************
35 Wired News: Rocket Fuel in Milk, Lettuce
By Amit Asaravala
03:04 PM Nov. 30, 2004 PT
A large portion of the United States' milk and lettuce supply may
be contaminated with potentially unsafe levels of a toxic
chemical used in rocket fuel, according to data released by the
Food and Drug Administration on Monday.
The data, part of a preliminary survey of milk and lettuce in 15
states, revealed perchlorate contamination in nearly 94 percent
of reviewed samples. The results echo earlier findings by the
Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit watchdog that issued a
warning about perchlorate contamination in California-produced
milk in June.
"The study confirms what we and some other people have been
saying for a while -- that perchlorate is not only a problem in
areas with known water contamination but for anyone who eats
food grown in the U.S.," said Bill Walker, vice president of the
Environmental Working Group's West Coast operations.
Perchlorate is both a naturally occurring and man-made chemical.
It is used by the aerospace and defense industries to help
rocket fuel burn. In humans, high concentrations can disrupt the
thyroid gland, which regulates metabolism and is linked to the
development of motor skills in children.
Because the long-term effects of small concentrations of
perchlorate on humans are still unknown, both the FDA and the
Environmental Working Group cautioned consumers not to draw the
conclusion that they should stop drinking milk or eating
lettuce.
"At this point we don't know if there is any risk," said an FDA
spokeswoman. "Therefore, we're telling consumers to continue to
eat a well-balanced diet. We don't want people to alter their
diet in ways that make them think they're removing perchlorate,
when they're really removing the healthy benefits of those
foods."
In its survey, the FDA found an average concentration of 5.76
parts per billion of perchlorate in the 104 milk samples it
studied. In 128 samples of green leaf, red leaf, iceberg and
romaine lettuce, the agency found an average concentration of
10.49 parts per billion.
Federal and state agencies are still debating just how much
perchlorate is acceptable in human diets. California health
officials recommend that drinking water not exceed more than 6
parts per billion of perchlorate. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, meanwhile, recommends a stricter 1 part per
billion.
"It's subtle," said Walker. "It's not like you're fine today if
you get 6 parts per billion (of perchlorate in milk) and then
tomorrow you drink a glass with 7 parts per billion and suddenly
you're sick."
He added, however, that people with existing thyroid problems
and pregnant women should monitor the total amount of
perchlorate they ingest each day.
"We found that there are some people out there -- like the 1.6
million people of child-bearing age -- who are eating a diet
very heavy in lettuce," he said. "This could be exceeding the
EPA's recommended safe dose."
Though the FDA study didn't explore how perchlorate gets into
lettuce or milk, scientists believe it enters the water stream
through industrial leaks. It is then thought to be taken up by,
and concentrated in, plants and animals.
The National Academy of Sciences is currently reviewing the
EPA's assessment of the risks of perchlorate. A report is
expected in Jan 2005. The FDA said it would wait until then to
decide whether or not to enforce limits on the amount of the
chemical that can appear in food products.
[http://www.wired.com
We are translated daily into [http://www.hotwired.co.jp/news/]
Inc. All Rights Reserved.
[http://www.wired.com/news/explanation.html] for details. [
*****************************************************************
36 NRC: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste Meeting on Planning and
FR Doc 04-26358
[Federal Register: November 30, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 229)]
[Notices] [Page 69639] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr30no04-92]
Procedures; Notice of Meeting The ACNW will hold a Planning and
Procedures meeting on December 13, 2004, Room T-2B3, 11545
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the
exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
552b(c) (2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel
matters that relate solely to internal personnel rules and
practices of ACNW, and information the release of which would
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: Monday,
December 13, 2004--1 p.m.-2:15 p.m. The Committee will discuss
proposed ACNW activities and related matters. The purpose of this
meeting is to gather information, analyze relevant issues and
facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as
appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official,
Mr. Howard J. Larson (Telephone: 301/415-6805) between 7:30 a.m.
and 4:15 p.m. (e.t.) five days prior to the meeting, if possible,
so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic
recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the
meeting that are open to the public.
Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by
contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and
4:15 p.m. (e.t.). Persons planning to attend this meeting are
urged to contact the above named individual at least two working
days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes
in the agenda.
Dated: November 23, 2004.
John H. Flack, Acting Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW.
[FR Doc. 04-26358 Filed 11-29-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
37 Las Vegas RJ: Nuclear lobbyists won't fight Yucca ruling
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
By STEVE TETREAULT
STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- The Nuclear Energy Institute has decided to drop
its fight against a federal court ruling that has handicapped
plans for a Nevada nuclear waste repository.
Attorneys for the trade association will not ask the Supreme
Court to review a repository health standard that was thrown out
on July 9 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit, a spokesman said Monday.
NEI spokesman Mitch Singer said the group's lawyers concluded
chances were slim the Supreme Court justices would have agreed to
hear the case.
The odds increased further, Singer said, when the U.S. Solicitor
General's office announced in October the government had no
interest in joining any appeal.
NEI attorneys "thought the odds would be pretty long, especially
without the participation of the government," Singer said.
The NEI decision appeared to close the book on a suite of
lawsuits that were filed in 2001 and 2002 challenging government
decisions to proceed with nuclear waste burial at Yucca Mountain.
The state of Nevada and environmental organizations challenged
actions by the Energy Department, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency and the White
House to further the project. The Nuclear Energy Institute also
filed a lawsuit against the EPA. Ruling in July, a three-judge
panel upheld many segments of the nuclear waste effort. But it
threw the Yucca project into uncertainty by one decision voiding
a 10,000-year radiation protection standard for the site.
The judges said EPA did not follow a National Academy of
Sciences recommendation that radiation protections should be in
place for thousands of years longer.
EPA officials have said they plan to develop new radiation
standards to respond to the court's criticism.
However, EPA has not indicated how long it could take to write
new rules and formalize them through a public review process.
Some experts have said that could take several years at least,
potentially keeping the Yucca program in limbo that long.
DOE officials announced last week they were postponing a
year-end goal to complete a repository license application, in
part because of uncertainty over the radiation standard.
Another option is for Congress to intervene and reinstate the
radiation standards that were voided by the federal court, or set
new standards itself.
Singer said NEI has not decided yet whether to lobby Congress to
reinstate the 10,000-year standard.
Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal
*****************************************************************
38 Las Vegas SUN: DOE: Tunnel supports not a priority for Yucca
By Benjamin Grove SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- Yucca Mountain tunnel supports that prevent rock
falls ultimately are not "important" to safely isolating nuclear
waste, the Energy Department said.
The tunnel supports include rock bolts, wire mesh and steel
sets that would help hold up tunnel walls and ceilings. The
supports used to be on the Energy Department's Yucca "Q list," a
catalog of project systems and materials that would be important
to safely contain radiation in the proposed nuclear waste
repository -- and therefore subject to quality assurance rules.
But the department removed the tunnel supports from the list as
of July, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
An Oct. 27 memo written by two Yucca inspectors for the NRC
confirmed that project managers had removed the tunnel supports
from the Q list after the managers concluded the supports had
been "inappropriately classified as important to safety or waste
isolation."
"That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard," said Rep. Jim
Gibbons, R-Nev., a geologist. "I don't believe that anyone in
their right mind would say that the rock bolts and the tunnel
walls are not a QA issue. It's always a QA issue."
The Energy Department removed the tunnel supports from the Q
list after an analysis concluded the tunnel supports would not
officially be a part of the overall Yucca safety system designed
to isolate highly radioactive waste from the environment for
thousands of years, according to the NRC memo.
The department's models and research suggest that safety
strategies such as high-tech alloy metal containers covered by
titanium "drip shields" are more than enough to isolate waste.
The tunnel supports are an added measure of safety, but
ultimately not a necessary one, according to the department.
"The tunnel support system isn't included in the Q list because
the other engineered systems provide for radiological
protection," DOE spokesman Allen Benson said.
The Energy Department is wrong about that, Gibbons said. Any
tunnel collapse or fracture would create new "avenues of escape"
for radiation, Gibbons said.
"It's like putting water in a fractured glass," he said.
Benson added that the tunnel supports are subject to an
"augmented" quality assurance program "that addresses the same
general areas as our nuclear safety QA program."
But Yucca critics believe the tunnel supports should be subject
to the "nuclear safety" Q list. The supports would be vital to
ultimately isolating radiation at Yucca and should be subject to
the future repository's "QA" safety rules -- even if that means
increased costs and trouble, critics said.
"Life gets easier when you don't have to do quality assurance
on something," said Judy Treichel, executive director of Nevada
Nuclear Waste Task Force. "The DOE is always full of bad
surprises."
From the Energy Department perspective, the tunnel supports are
important for the construction phase of the repository, not the
ultimate performance of it, said David Duquette, a member of the
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, which was created by
Congress to be an independent Yucca watchdog.
That makes sense given that far into the future the tunnel
supports likely will fail, which is why the department aims to
prove that other safety systems like the drip shields and metal
containers will not fail, said Duquette, a metals and alloys
expert and professor of materials science at Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York.
Duquette said the review board has not yet fully examined the
next logical question: How would rock falls affect the drip
shields? And ultimately, would possible drip shield failure lead
to increased corrosion of the waste containers?
Duquette said he has not yet seen a full analysis of that
question from the Energy Department.
"We do have some concerns about the drip shield itself,"
Duquette said.
The tunnel support issue is just one on a long list of
challenges the state of Nevada plans to make to the Energy
Department's application for a license to construct Yucca. Those
challenges are part of a broader argument that the department
can't construct a safe repository.
Failed supports could allow rock falls that over time could
dent metal nuclear waste containers, Yucca critics said.
Eventually that could create cracks or small pits on the
container surfaces where corrosive moisture or dust could
collect, they said.
"This is just another example of cutting corners to save money
and accelerate the project," said lawyer Joe Egan, who is
leading legal challenges against Yucca for the state of Nevada.
Significant rock falls also could complicate -- even prevent --
the retrieval of waste inside Yucca, Egan said.
Energy Department officials have said they intend to develop
Yucca as a retrievable waste repository. Retrievals in the
high-temperature tunnels likely would rely on robotic technology
that would be hampered by rock falls.
Retrieving waste during an emergency failure of the repository
is vital to the Energy Department's argument that Yucca is safe,
critics said.
"I would say that is the ultimate safety matter," said Martin
Malsch, a lawyer who works with Egan. "If something happens you
want to be able to get the waste the hell out of there."
The "de-listing" of the tunnel supports comes as Yucca quality
assurance programs have been under fire.
The NRC, which will be responsible for licensing and regulating
Yucca, has been critical of quality assurance.
So has the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of
Congress. In April the GAO reported that quality assurance
problems could delay the project. Energy Department officials
have said they made changes to improve quality assurance.
But the department may have a tough time convincing the NRC
that basic tunnel supports should not be on the Q list, Nevada
officials said.
"The DOE has been sloppy on QA for years, and they are still
playing catch up, and they still can't get it right," said Steve
Frishman, a technical consultant to the state of Nevada.
The NRC cannot comment yet on whether or not removing tunnel
supports from the Q list raised any red flags among agency
officials, NRC spokeswoman Sue Gagner said.
The NRC will review the matter when it reviews the Energy
Department's license application, Gagner said.
The Energy Department had planned to submit the application --
a detailed, technical explanation of the entire Yucca safety
system -- by year's end. But department officials last week said
that submission will be delayed.
*****************************************************************
39 Platts: French parliament sets waste policy hearings for early 2005
[The McGraw-Hill Companies]
+ The French parliament will hold hearings in early 2005 on
high-level and long-lived waste management policy.
The Parliamentary Office for the Evaluation of Science
&Technology Options (Opecst) will organize three full days of
public hearings devoted to the three waste management paths
outlined in the country's 1991 law on research into management of
long-term radwastes, said Opecst Vice President Jean-Yves Le
Deaut.
On Jan. 20, the office will probe partitioning and transmutation;
on Jan. 27, deep geologic disposal, "both reversible and
irreversible;" and on Feb. 3, long-term interim storage.
Opecst President Claude Birraux and member Christian Bataille are
working on a report, expected in mid-2005, on the management of
long-lived wastes.
Paris (Platts)--29Nov2004
Copyright © 2004 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
[The McGraw-Hill Companies]
*****************************************************************
40 Guardian Unlimited: Rowhani: Iran Has Not Abandoned Enrichment
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday November 30, 2004 10:46 AM
AP Photo VAH104
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
Associated Press Writer
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran has not abandoned its right to enrich
uranium as the suspension it agreed to with the U.N. nuclear
agency is for several months, Iran's top nuclear official, Hassan
Rowhani, said Tuesday.
Speaking to reporters, Rowhani hailed the resolution passed by
the International Atomic Energy Agency on Monday which authorized
IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei to monitor Iran's commitment to
freeze uranium enrichment activities. Such enrichment can produce
either low grade fuel for nuclear reactors or the raw material
for atomic weapons.
The resolution followed a Nov. 7 agreement on suspending
enrichment activities that France, Germany and Britain negotiated
with Iran to stave off tougher action by the U.N. watchdog, which
could have referred Iran to the U.N. Security Council for
possible sanctions.
``This new situation is a turning point in Iran's nuclear case
because, for the first time, the (IAEA) board of governors
acknowledged Iran's right to peaceful nuclear activities,''
Rowhani said.
The United States suspects Iran has a secret program to produce
nuclear weapons, and has been lobbying for the country's nuclear
file to go before the Security Council. Iran insists its program
is strictly for generating electricity.
After the IAEA passed the resolution, U.S. chief delegate Jackie
Sanders told the board there were more than a dozen open
questions about Iran's nuclear intentions despite the agency's
nearly two-year investigation of the country.
``This makes it clear that the IAEA cannot ... offer the
necessary assurances that Iran is not attempting to produce
nuclear material for weapons,'' Sanders said.
Rowhani was dismissive of U.S. arguments.
``We have proved that our enemies are liars, and the path of the
Islamic Republic of Iran has been legal and peaceful,'' he said.
``Despite American propaganda, Iran has not abandoned fuel cycle
and it will not do that,'' Rowhani said.
``The suspension (of enrichment activities) will be limited to
the negotiation period with Europe and not beyond. In case
negotiations cease or are unsuccessful, there will not be any
sort of suspension.''
The negotiation period, Rowhani said, ``means several months, not
(a) year.''
Iran is negotiating with Europe to acquire advanced nuclear
technology.
Rowhani reiterated Iran is committed to the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty and has no ambition to build an atomic
bomb.
``Iran has never pursued the production of nuclear weapons and it
will never do that,'' Rowhani said.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
*****************************************************************
41 PE.com: Next Wyle steps detailed
| Inland Southern California | Corona-Norco
NORCO: Health officials' plan to clean up pollution pleases some
residents. Others see failure.
07:04 AM PST on Tuesday, November 30, 2004
By PAIGE AUSTIN / The Press-Enterprise
NORCO - About 75 people gathered at a town hall meeting Monday
night to discuss the latest findings and cleanup plans for
pollution at the Wyle Labs property and surrounding
neighborhoods.
The state's Department of Toxic Substances Control released the
latest vapor gas test results from Golden West Lane, which
revealed high levels of TCE, the main pollutant at the former
hazardous testing facility, in the ground near a handful of
homes.
State and county health officials and regulators announced plans
to study how contamination flows into the surrounding community
through cracks and crevices in the bedrock.
Officials also discussed possible plans to test in more
neighborhoods with health complaints, to clean up at least one
private home with high levels of contamination, and to send out a
survey to all homes within a half mile of Wyle to locate private
wells that could be tested for contamination.
Residents had mixed reactions to the announcements. Some said the
flurry of testing activity shows that the state is listening to
the community's health concerns while others feel the process is
still too slow and too small.
Tony Mauro, a member of the Wyle Community Advisory Group, said
the investigation is finally moving in the right direction.
"I'm very pleased that they are going to be testing private wells
and are looking into doing more testing," he said. "It's taken a
lot to get to this point."
Other residents were less positive.
Maria Austin, who wants her home on Second Street to be tested,
said her parents and two aunts have lived in separate houses on
Second Street, and each has battled cancer. She lost one aunt to
cancer, her father has battled lymphoma, and last week another
aunt was diagnosed with cancer.
"What is it going to take to get them to test on my street?"
Test results on a private well on Hillside Avenue released last
month showed levels of suspected cancer-causing agents such as
TCE and perchlorate. The industrial solvent TCE showed up at 680
parts per billion, hundreds of times the regulatory reporting
limit.
Reach Paige Austin at (951) 893-2106 or paustin@pe.com
[paustin@pe.com] More headlines... Senior leader
© 2004 Belo Interactive Inc.
*****************************************************************
42 IPS-English AUSTRALIA: Non-Proliferation the Word,
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:34:02 -0800
ROMAIPS AP WD IP SC
AUSTRALIA: Non-Proliferation the Word, Weapons-Enrichment the Game
By Bob Burton
CANBERRA, Nov 30 (IPS) - The Australian government has been accused by
Greenpeace Australia of being hypocritical in touting its nuclear
proliferation control credentials while supporting the development of
uranium enrichment technology, which security experts claim could also be
used to produce materials for use in nuclear weapons.
Releasing a report Tuesday into the operations of a private
Sydney-based company, Silex Systems Ltd, Greenpeace Australia nuclear
campaigner, James Courtney, said the Australian government's support for
the company was disturbing.
''It sends an extremely dangerous message to our near neighbours in the
South-east Asian region, that the Australian government has the technical
capacity to develop nuclear weapons and is actively involved in nuclear
research which is classified by the United States government because of its
direct application to the development of nuclear weapons,'' he said.
''If any other country, be it Iran Syria or Iraq, was involved in this
research it would be taken as a sign of a covert weapons programme by the
Australian government ... It is extremely hypocritical of the Australian
government to be supporting the development of laser enrichment technology
in Australia,'' added Courtney.
The release of the Greenpeace report titled 'Secrets, Lies and Uranium
Enrichment' coincides with Australian Defence Minister, Senator Robert
Hill, opening the eighth meeting of the Proliferation Security Initiative
(PSI) conference in Sydney. The PSI is a U.S.-led initiative aimed at
isolating countries such as North Korea, which it accuses of being involved
in nuclear proliferation.
In his opening speech Hill warned delegates that ''in an increasingly
globalised world, WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction)-relevant technology and
know-how stand to become even more accessible ... Present non-proliferation
regimes, which have been negotiated between states, are ill-equipped to
tackle the problem of WMD falling into the hands of non-state actors.''
The stated aim of the PSI conference, which has attracted delegates
from 19 governments, but only Thailand, Singapore and Japan from the Asian
region, is to ''determine the best ways to prevent the spread of weapons of
mass destruction.''
Hill told the conference: ''Australia will step up its efforts to
encourage stronger controls and security for radioactive sources in our
region.''
However afterwards Hill refused to answer journalists' questions about
the operations of Silex. ''I don't think it is appropriate to me to refer
to particular companies,'' he said.
Hill did acknowledge that some 'dual use' nuclear technology, which can
be used for both weapons production and in nuclear power operations ''may
have been exported from Australia innocently'' for use in weapons research
programmes.
The technology - which theoretically would be a much cheaper form of
enrichment - alarmed the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as long ago
as 1981 because of the risk that it could dramatically increase nuclear
proliferation. In its now declassified report, 'Uranium Enrichment, Threat
of Nuclear Proliferation Increasing', the CIA stated that the development
of laser enrichment technology ''alarmed'' policy makers.
''Any country might acquire the necessary technology to set up a garage
sized plant to produce weapon grade uranium anywhere in the world,'' the
CIA warned.
Silex, however, dismisses concerns that its technology may result in
nuclear proliferation. ''Silex technology is now and always will be heavily
regulated by Australian and U.S. government authorities to avoid any
proliferation issues,'' it said in a statement.
Greenpeace's Courtney argues that the extent of Australian government
support for Silex is extraordinary. ''The Australian government has given
unprecedented support to this company. They have provided access to
materials, they have cooperated with the United States to allow the
transfer of sensitive technology and equipment and they have turned a blind
eye from scientists coming from South Africa to work on this project,'' he
said.
While the laser enrichment technology, if successfully developed, would
be cheaper than the convention centrifugal enrichment technology, the
financial prospects for Silex look bleak.
In April 2003, after forking out approximately 20 million U.S. dollars
into researching the technology with Silex over a six-year period, the
United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) - the world's largest
enrichment company - pulled the plug on the project.
In January this year the French Atomic Energy Commission brought its
20-year long research effort into laser enrichment to an end while Japan
arrived at a similar conclusion in October 2001.
Despite the diminishing support for the technology, Silex remains
determined to soldier on. Last week at its annual general meeting the
company informed shareholders that it lost 9.2 million dollars for the year.
''Shareholders should appreciate that Silex has not yet commercialised
any of its exciting technologies, some of which are still in the late
development stage,'' it warned.
Despite the mounting financial losses, the company told shareholders
that by early next year it plans to have completed a review to determine
the financial viability of its technology, which it said would determine
''our prospects for securing a new commercial partner.''
Meanwhile, the company reported that it has been ''engaged for some
months in third party discussions with two large overseas organisations.''
Australian Greens Senator for New South Wales, Senator Kerry Nettle,
who plans to move a motion in the Senate to legislate against uranium
enrichment later this week, wants Defence Minister Senator Hill to stop
evading questions.
''(Can the minister) tell us about how it fits in with the
responsibility this government has to ensure that we don't have a
proliferation of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons technology throughout
our region?'' she asked. '' Also how does it fit in with our commitments to
the Proliferation Security Initiative that the minister was talking about
this morning?''(END/IPS/AP/WD/IP/SC/BB/SI/04)
= 11300925 ORP011
NNNN
*****************************************************************
43 [NukeNet] Comments on Hanford Waste Characterization/WIPP
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:30:23 -0800
In July, the DOE mistakenly sent TRU waste to WIPP before the EPA had
approved it, and, as a result, "600 drums of PFP solids were emplaced in
the WIPP repository between July and September 2004."
Now EPA has solicited a public comment period on documents relating to
the characterization of this waste:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/06jun20041800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2004/04-26480.htm
[Federal Register: November 30, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 229)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 69569-69572]
>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr30no04-27]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 194
[FRL-7844-4]
Waste Characterization Program Documents Applicable to
Transuranic Radioactive Waste From the Hanford Site for Disposal at the
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of availability; opening of public comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, we or Agency) is
announcing the availability of and soliciting public comment for 30
days on, Department of Energy (DOE) documents applicable to the
characterization of transuranic (TRU) radioactive solid waste from the
Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) at the Hanford site. The documents are
available for review in the public dockets listed in SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION. EPA is issuing this notice because the Agency must conduct
an expedited review of one of the elements of Hanford's waste
characterization (WC) processes, known as acceptable knowledge (AK). In
June 2003, EPA conducted an inspection at Hanford, pursuant to 40 CFR
194.8, to evaluate the WC processes used for characterizing PFP solid
waste. However, at that time, EPA did not examine the AK process for
the same waste. In August 2003, EPA approved all WC components except
AK for characterizing the PFP solid waste and noted in the approval
letter that the PFP solid waste may not be disposed of at the WIPP
because EPA had not examined and approved the AK process. In the
absence of the EPA approval of this waste, however, in July 2004, the
Department of Energy (DOE) mistakenly certified this waste stream as
eligible for disposal at WIPP. As a result, 600 drums of PFP solids
were emplaced in the WIPP repository between July and September 2004.
Early in September 2004, the DOE discovered this error and immediately
suspended the shipment of the PFP solids from Hanford. To meet the
Agency's regulatory obligations EPA must conduct an ``after-the-fact''
review of the AK process to determine adequacy of the AK documentation.
Therefore, EPA will conduct an evaluation of AK documents and, as
needed, telephone interviews with site personnel specific to the PFP
solids to determine Hanford's compliance with EPA's WIPP compliance
criteria and ensure that the emplacement of this waste has no adverse
effect on WIPP's performance. EPA's evaluation may lead to an approval
at which time the site could resume shipment of the PFP solid waste to
WIPP for disposal. EPA does not believe that the PFP solid wastes
improperly emplaced at WIPP constitute a threat to human health, to the
environment or to the long-term performance of the WIPP repository.
Based on this determination, the Hanford PFP solid waste may remain in
WIPP while EPA undertakes a desk-top review of the AK information.
[[Page 69570]]
DATES: EPA is requesting public comment on the documents. Comments must
be received by EPA's official Air Docket on or before December 30,
2004.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail to: EPA Docket Center
(EPA/DC), Air and Radiation Docket, Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA West, Mail Code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20460. Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0477. Comments may also be
submitted electronically, by facsimile, or through hand delivery/
courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I.B of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rajani D. Joglekar, Office of
Radiation and Indoor Air, (202) 343-9462. You can also call EPA's
toll-
free WIPP Information Line, 1-800-331-WIPP or visit our Web site at
http://www.epa/gov/radiation/wipp.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related
Information?
1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this
action under Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0477. The official public docket
consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any
public comments received, and other information related to this action.
Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not
include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket
is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at
the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA
West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA
Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number
for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number
for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742. These documents are
also available for review in paper form at the official EPA Air Docket
in Washington, DC, Docket No. A-98-49, Category II-A2, and at the
following three EPA WIPP informational docket locations in New Mexico:
In Carlsbad at the Municipal Library, hours: Monday-Thursday, 10 a.m.-9
p.m., Friday-Saturday, 10 a.m.-6 p.m., and Sunday, 1 p.m.-5 p.m.; in
Albuquerque at the Government Publications Department, Zimmerman
Library, University of New Mexico, hours: vary by semester; and in
Santa Fe at the New Mexico State Library, hours: Monday-Friday, 9
a.m.-
5 p.m. As provided in EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 2, and in
accordance with normal EPA docket procedures, if copies of any docket
materials are requested, a reasonable fee may be charged for
photocopying.
2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may
use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official
public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that
are available electronically. Once in the system, select ``search,''
then key in the appropriate docket identification number.
Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets.
Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public
docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic
public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be
placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent
feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in
EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the
index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the
document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket.
Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you
may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through
the docket facility identified in Unit I.B. EPA intends to work towards
providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket
materials through EPA's electronic public docket.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper,
will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public
docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment
containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that
material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's
electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the
copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or
delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public
docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will
be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where
practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph
will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief
description written by the docket staff.
For additional information about EPA's electronic public docket
visit EPA Dockets online or see 67 FR 38102, May 31, 2002.
B. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?
You may submit comments electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or
through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA,
identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject
line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your
comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments
received after the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.''
EPA is not required to consider these late comments. However, late
comments may be considered if time permits.
1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as
prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing
address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body
of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside
of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying
the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA
will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information
provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the
comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made
available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification,
[[Page 69571]]
EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to
submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for
receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at
http://www.epa.gov/edocket
, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. To
access EPA's electronic public docket from the EPA Internet Home Page,
select ``Information Sources,'' ``Dockets,'' and ``EPA Dockets.'' Once
in the system, select ``search,'' and then key in Docket ID No. OAR-
2004-0477. The system is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means
EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
ii. E-mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to
a-and-r-docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0477. In
contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not
an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment directly
to the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket,
EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail
addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.
2. By Mail. Send your comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Air
and Radiation Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West, Mail
Code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0477.
3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Air and
Radiation Docket, EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-
2004-0477. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal
hours of operation as identified in Unit I.A.1.
4. By Facsimile. Fax your comments to: (202) 566-1741, Attention
Docket ID. No. OAR-2004-0477.
C. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide any technical information and/or data you used that
support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at your estimate.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Offer alternatives.
7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket
identification number in the subject line on the first page of your
response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and
Federal Register citation related to your comments.
II. Background
DOE operates the WIPP near Carlsbad in southeastern New Mexico as a
deep geologic repository for disposal of TRU radioactive waste. As
defined by the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (LWA) of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-
579), as amended (Pub. L. 104-201), TRU waste consists of materials
containing elements having atomic numbers greater than 92 (with half-
lives greater than twenty years), in concentrations greater than 100
nanocuries of alpha-emitting TRU isotopes per gram of waste. Much of
the existing TRU waste consists of items contaminated during the
production of nuclear weapons, such as rags, equipment, tools, and
sludges.
On May 13, 1998, EPA announced its final compliance certification
decision to the Secretary of Energy (published May 18, 1998, 63 FR
27354). This decision stated that the WIPP will comply with EPA's
radioactive waste disposal regulations at 40 CFR part 191, subparts B
and C.
The final WIPP certification decision includes conditions that (1)
prohibit shipment of TRU waste for disposal at WIPP from any site other
than the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) until EPA determines
that the site has established and executed a quality assurance program,
in accordance with Sec. Sec. 194.22(a)(2)(i), 194.24(c)(3), and
194.24(c)(5) for WC activities and assumptions (Condition 2 of Appendix
A to 40 CFR part 194); and (2) prohibit shipment of TRU waste for
disposal at WIPP from any site other than LANL until EPA has approved
the procedures developed to comply with the waste characterization
requirements of Sec. 194.22(c)(4) (Condition 3 of Appendix A to 40 CFR
part 194). EPA's approval process for waste generator sites is
described in Sec. 194.8. As part of EPA's decision-making process, the
DOE is required to submit to EPA appropriate documentation of quality
assurance and WC programs at each DOE waste generator site seeking
approval for shipment of TRU radioactive waste to WIPP. In accordance
with Sec. 194.8, EPA will place such documentation in the official Air
Docket in Washington, DC, and informational dockets in the State of New
Mexico for public review and comment.
In June 2003, EPA inspected Hanford's WC processes used when
characterizing PFP solid waste. During this inspection, however, EPA
did not examine the acceptable knowledge (AK) process. EPA inspected
the other components of the system of controls (radioassay,
radiography, visual examination, and WIPP Waste Information System)
implemented by Hanford to demonstrate to EPA and DOE the adequacy of
its TRU waste characterization program. In an August 7, 2003, letter to
the Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO), EPA approved Hanford's TRU debris
waste from the Waste Receiving and Processing Plant and PFP
characterized using the approved systems and processes covered in the
June 2003 Inspection Report. In the letter, EPA specifically stated
that ``EPA has not approved acceptable knowledge for TRU solids,
specifically ash and mixed oxides, characterized at the PFP facility.
As a result, DOE may not dispose at the WIPP any ash and mixed oxides
from the PFP facility.''
EPA recently discovered that between July 25 and September 4, 2004,
DOE had shipped and emplaced in the WIPP approximately 1,500 drums of
PFP solid waste (ash) and mixed oxides from Hanford. The emplacement of
the PFP solid waste drums at the WIPP repository was based on a DOE
certification letter to Hanford, dated July 14, 2004. The DOE
certification letter did not reflect EPA's restriction on disposal of
Hanford's PFP solid waste stream. This restriction was based on the
fact that EPA had not fully evaluated, nor approved, AK documentation
as part of the waste characterization for these solid wastes. Under our
regulations, without EPA approval, DOE cannot certify any waste from
TRU waste sites for disposal at the WIPP. Thus, CBFO's certification of
Hanford PFP solids for disposal at WIPP conflicts with EPA's site
approval and violates EPA regulations at 40 CFR 194.8 and 24. DOE has
voluntarily suspended further PFP solid waste shipments from Hanford to
WIPP and has agreed to take steps to identify the cause of the error
and prevent recurrence. Nevertheless, significant quantities of this
waste have already been emplaced at WIPP. EPA must
[[Page 69572]]
assess the AK process to comply with the requirements of 40 CFR part
194, section 24. EPA does not believe that the PFP solid wastes
improperly emplaced at WIPP constitute a threat to human health, to the
environment or to the long-term performance of the WIPP repository.
Based on this determination, the Hanford PFP solid waste will remain in
WIPP while EPA undertakes a desk-top review of the AK information for
the PFP solid wastes.
With regard to mixed oxides, DOE has clarified that these materials
are properly categorized as debris waste rather than as part of the PFP
solid waste stream. Based on documentation provided by the DOE, we
concur in this determination. The 900 drums of mixed oxides were fully
characterized using the procedures approved by EPA for debris waste
(S5000) in our August 7, 2003, letter. Therefore, we find their
characterization is adequate and no further action is needed to confirm
that their placement in the WIPP is allowed. For the remaining 600
drums of ash belonging to the solid waste stream, further evaluation is
needed to assess the adequacy of waste characterization processes.
Until EPA completes its review of the AK process for Hanford PFP solids
and, if warranted, approves the subject waste stream (S3000) for
disposal at the WIPP, the Agency has directed DOE not to resume
shipment of the remaining TRU solid waste containers from the Hanford
PFP.
In most cases, EPA's inspections are conducted through on-site
inspections in which the operation of WC equipment and processes can be
demonstrated. However, the evaluation of AK relies almost exclusively
on a review of documentation. Thus, while such review is often
conducted on-site ( for convenience, in conjunction with other on-site
evaluations), it can be conducted at a remote location with equal ease
and rigor. This is especially true for AK related to Hanford PFP
solids. Hanford has not relied on the AK information for physical and
radiological characterization of the PFP solids; the site relied
exclusively on spectroscopic systems to establish isotopic ratios.
(Isotopic ratios are sometime used to estimate individual radionuclides
when the equipment is not able to quantify them.) Because AK
information for the waste was not used to derive or extrapolate WC data
tracked for the waste, we expect little linkage with other WC
procedures, so there is no need to conduct an on-site inspection. By
thorough inspection of the AK documents we can determine adequacy,
completeness, sufficiency, and appropriateness of the AK used for waste
characterization.
For this inspection, EPA will conduct a desk-top review of the most
recent versions of the AK documents applicable to the Hanford PFP solid
waste that were used by the DOE auditors in June 2003. As necessary,
EPA will interview by phone the relevant experts at Hanford PFP.
Evaluation of the AK documentation pertaining to the PFP solids will be
limited to verification of the waste pedigree--defense determination,
S3000 waste category determination, absence of liquids confirmation,
and classification as TRU waste. This evaluation will allow sufficient
evaluation of the adequacy, completeness, and effectiveness of the
applicable AK process.
Through this Federal Register notice, EPA is notifying the public
that EPA will evaluate Hanford's AK process and procedure specific to
the PFP solid waste. EPA will perform an inspection of Hanford's AK
process for the PFP solid waste in accordance with Condition 3 of the
WIPP Certification. If EPA determines as a result of the evaluation
that the AK documentation is adequate and is well supported by the
radioassay, radiography, and visual examination results, we will notify
DOE by letter and place the letter in the official Air Docket in
Washington, DC, as well as in the informational docket locations in New
Mexico. A letter of approval will allow DOE to leave waste in WIPP
underground panels and to resume disposal of the remaining PFP solid
waste characterized by the approved processes from Hanford to WIPP. EPA
will not make a determination of compliance prior to completing its AK
documentation audit or before the 30-day comment period has closed. We
have separately directed DOE by letter what measures or restrictions
are necessary to prevent recurrence of such violations of EPA's site-
specific waste characterization requirements. This letter is available
in Docket A-98-49 (Washington, DC, and our three locations in New
Mexico), as well as online at the EDOCKET Web site
(http://www.epa.gov/edocket) in Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0477.
Information on the certification decision is filed in the official
EPA Air Docket, Docket No. A-93-02 and is available for review in
Washington, DC, and at three EPA WIPP informational docket locations in
New Mexico. The dockets in New Mexico contain only major items from the
official Air Docket in Washington, DC, plus those documents added to
the official Air Docket since the October 1992 enactment of the WIPP
LWA.
Dated: November 23, 2004.
Robert Brenner,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 04-26480 Filed 11-29-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
44 DOE: Hanford PFP waste characterization
FR Doc 04-26480
[Federal Register: November 30, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 229)]
[Proposed Rules] [Page 69569-69572] From the Federal Register
Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr30no04-27]
Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) at the Hanford site. The
documents are available for review in the public dockets listed
in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. EPA is issuing this notice because
the Agency must conduct an expedited review of one of the
elements of Hanford's waste characterization (WC) processes,
known as acceptable knowledge (AK). In June 2003, EPA conducted
an inspection at Hanford, pursuant to 40 CFR 194.8, to evaluate
the WC processes used for characterizing PFP solid waste.
However, at that time, EPA did not examine the AK process for the
same waste. In August 2003, EPA approved all WC components except
AK for characterizing the PFP solid waste and noted in the
approval letter that the PFP solid waste may not be disposed of
at the WIPP because EPA had not examined and approved the AK
process. In the absence of the EPA approval of this waste,
however, in July 2004, the Department of Energy (DOE) mistakenly
certified this waste stream as eligible for disposal at WIPP. As
a result, 600 drums of PFP solids were emplaced in the WIPP
repository between July and September 2004. Early in September
2004, the DOE discovered this error and immediately suspended the
shipment of the PFP solids from Hanford. To meet the Agency's
regulatory obligations EPA must conduct an ``after-the-fact''
review of the AK process to determine adequacy of the AK
documentation. Therefore, EPA will conduct an evaluation of AK
documents and, as needed, telephone interviews with site
personnel specific to the PFP solids to determine Hanford's
compliance with EPA's WIPP compliance criteria and ensure that
the emplacement of this waste has no adverse effect on WIPP's
performance. EPA's evaluation may lead to an approval at which
time the site could resume shipment of the PFP solid waste to
WIPP for disposal. EPA does not believe that the PFP solid wastes
improperly emplaced at WIPP constitute a threat to human health,
to the environment or to the long-term performance of the WIPP
repository. Based on this determination, the Hanford PFP solid
waste may remain in WIPP while EPA undertakes a desk-top review
of the AK information.
[[Page 69570]]
DATES: EPA is requesting public comment on the documents.
Comments must be received by EPA's official Air Docket on or
before December 30, 2004.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail to: EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC), Air and Radiation Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA West, Mail Code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Attention Docket ID No.
OAR-2004-0477. Comments may also be submitted electronically, by
facsimile, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed
instructions as provided in Unit I.B of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rajani D. Joglekar, Office
of Radiation and Indoor Air, (202) 343-9462. You can also call
EPA's toll- free WIPP Information Line, 1-800-331-WIPP or visit
our Web site at http://www.epa/gov/radiation/wipp
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.epa/gov/radiation/wipp] .
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. How Can I
Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information? 1.
Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this
action under Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0477. The official public
docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this
action, any public comments received, and other information
related to this action. Although a part of the official docket,
the public docket does not include Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. The official public docket is the
collection of materials that is available for public viewing at
the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC)
EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.
The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation
Docket is (202) 566-1742. These documents are also available for
review in paper form at the official EPA Air Docket in
Washington, DC, Docket No. A-98-49, Category II-A2, and at the
following three EPA WIPP informational docket locations in New
Mexico: In Carlsbad at the Municipal Library, hours:
Monday-Thursday, 10 a.m.-9 p.m., Friday-Saturday, 10 a.m.-6 p.m.,
and Sunday, 1 p.m.-5 p.m.; in Albuquerque at the Government
Publications Department, Zimmerman Library, University of New
Mexico, hours: vary by semester; and in Santa Fe at the New
Mexico State Library, hours: Monday-Friday, 9 a.m.- 5 p.m. As
provided in EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 2, and in accordance
with normal EPA docket procedures, if copies of any docket
materials are requested, a reasonable fee may be charged for
photocopying.
2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register
document electronically through the EPA Internet under the
``Federal Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/] . An
electronic version of the public docket is available through
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets.
You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.epa.gov/edocket/] to submit or
view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of
the official public docket, and to access those documents in the
public docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket
identification number.
Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA
Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the
official public docket, will not be available for public viewing
in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that
copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic
public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form
in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly
available docket materials will be made available in EPA's
electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the
index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the
document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public
docket. Although not all docket materials may be available
electronically, you may still access any of the publicly
available docket materials through the docket facility identified
in Unit I.B. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic
access to all of the publicly available docket materials through
EPA's electronic public docket.
For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy
is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in
paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's
electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change,
unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA
identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will
provide a reference to that material in the version of the
comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The
entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will
be available in the public docket.
Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or
delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic
public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to
the Docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public
docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed,
and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public
docket along with a brief description written by the docket
staff.
For additional information about EPA's electronic public docket
visit EPA Dockets online or see 67 FR 38102, May 31, 2002.
B. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments
electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or through hand
delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the
appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on
the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments
are submitted within the specified comment period.
Comments received after the close of the comment period will be
marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments. However, late comments may be considered if time
permits.
1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as
prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name,
mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact
information in the body of your comment. Also include this
contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you
submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM.
This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the
comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is
that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official
public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public
docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification,
[[Page 69571]] EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to
submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method
for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at
http://www.epa.gov/edocket
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.epa.gov/edocket] , and follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. To access EPA's
electronic public docket from the EPA Internet Home Page, select
``Information Sources,'' ``Dockets,'' and ``EPA Dockets.'' Once
in the system, select ``search,'' and then key in Docket ID No.
OAR- 2004-0477. The system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or
other contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment.
ii. E-mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to
a-and-r-docket@epa.gov [ a-and-r-docket@epa.gov] , Attention
Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0477. In contrast to EPA's electronic
public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an ``anonymous access''
system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the Docket
without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's
e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address.
E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail
system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the
official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic
public docket.
2. By Mail. Send your comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
Air and Radiation Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
West, Mail Code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20460. Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0477. 3. By Hand
Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Air and Radiation
Docket, EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No.
OAR- 2004-0477. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.A.1.
4. By Facsimile. Fax your comments to: (202) 566-1741, Attention
Docket ID. No. OAR-2004-0477. C. What Should I Consider as I
Prepare My Comments for EPA? You may find the following
suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your
views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that
you used. 3. Provide any technical information and/or data you
used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at your estimate.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6.
Offer alternatives. 7. Make sure to submit your comments by the
comment period deadline identified.
8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate
docket identification number in the subject line on the first
page of your response. It would also be helpful if you provided
the name, date, and Federal Register citation related to your
comments.
II. Background DOE operates the WIPP near Carlsbad in
southeastern New Mexico as a deep geologic repository for
disposal of TRU radioactive waste.
As defined by the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (LWA) of 1992 (Pub. L.
102- 579), as amended (Pub. L. 104-201), TRU waste consists of
materials containing elements having atomic numbers greater than
92 (with half- lives greater than twenty years), in
concentrations greater than 100 nanocuries of alpha-emitting TRU
isotopes per gram of waste.
Much of the existing TRU waste consists of items contaminated
during the production of nuclear weapons, such as rags,
equipment, tools, and sludges.
On May 13, 1998, EPA announced its final compliance certification
decision to the Secretary of Energy (published May 18, 1998, 63
FR 27354). This decision stated that the WIPP will comply with
EPA's radioactive waste disposal regulations at 40 CFR part 191,
subparts B and C.
The final WIPP certification decision includes conditions that
(1) prohibit shipment of TRU waste for disposal at WIPP from any
site other than the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) until
EPA determines that the site has established and executed a
quality assurance program, in accordance with Sec. Sec.
194.22(a)(2)(i), 194.24(c)(3), and 194.24(c)(5) for WC activities
and assumptions (Condition 2 of Appendix A to 40 CFR part 194);
and (2) prohibit shipment of TRU waste for disposal at WIPP from
any site other than LANL until EPA has approved the procedures
developed to comply with the waste characterization requirements
of Sec. 194.22(c)(4) (Condition 3 of Appendix A to 40 CFR part
194). EPA's approval process for waste generator sites is
described in Sec. 194.8. As part of EPA's decision-making
process, the DOE is required to submit to EPA appropriate
documentation of quality assurance and WC programs at each DOE
waste generator site seeking approval for shipment of TRU
radioactive waste to WIPP. In accordance with Sec. 194.8, EPA
will place such documentation in the official Air Docket in
Washington, DC, and informational dockets in the State of New
Mexico for public review and comment.
In June 2003, EPA inspected Hanford's WC processes used when
characterizing PFP solid waste. During this inspection, however,
EPA did not examine the acceptable knowledge (AK) process. EPA
inspected the other components of the system of controls
(radioassay, radiography, visual examination, and WIPP Waste
Information System) implemented by Hanford to demonstrate to EPA
and DOE the adequacy of its TRU waste characterization program.
In an August 7, 2003, letter to the Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO),
EPA approved Hanford's TRU debris waste from the Waste Receiving
and Processing Plant and PFP characterized using the approved
systems and processes covered in the June 2003 Inspection Report.
In the letter, EPA specifically stated that ``EPA has not
approved acceptable knowledge for TRU solids, specifically ash
and mixed oxides, characterized at the PFP facility. As a result,
DOE may not dispose at the WIPP any ash and mixed oxides from the
PFP facility.'' EPA recently discovered that between July 25 and
September 4, 2004, DOE had shipped and emplaced in the WIPP
approximately 1,500 drums of PFP solid waste (ash) and mixed
oxides from Hanford. The emplacement of the PFP solid waste drums
at the WIPP repository was based on a DOE certification letter to
Hanford, dated July 14, 2004. The DOE certification letter did
not reflect EPA's restriction on disposal of Hanford's PFP solid
waste stream. This restriction was based on the fact that EPA had
not fully evaluated, nor approved, AK documentation as part of
the waste characterization for these solid wastes.
Under our regulations, without EPA approval, DOE cannot certify
any waste from TRU waste sites for disposal at the WIPP. Thus,
CBFO's certification of Hanford PFP solids for disposal at WIPP
conflicts with EPA's site approval and violates EPA regulations
at 40 CFR 194.8 and 24. DOE has voluntarily suspended further PFP
solid waste shipments from Hanford to WIPP and has agreed to take
steps to identify the cause of the error and prevent recurrence.
Nevertheless, significant quantities of this waste have already
been emplaced at WIPP. EPA must
[[Page 69572]] assess the AK process to comply with the
requirements of 40 CFR part 194, section 24. EPA does not believe
that the PFP solid wastes improperly emplaced at WIPP constitute
a threat to human health, to the environment or to the long-term
performance of the WIPP repository. Based on this determination,
the Hanford PFP solid waste will remain in WIPP while EPA
undertakes a desk-top review of the AK information for the PFP
solid wastes.
With regard to mixed oxides, DOE has clarified that these
materials are properly categorized as debris waste rather than as
part of the PFP solid waste stream. Based on documentation
provided by the DOE, we concur in this determination. The 900
drums of mixed oxides were fully characterized using the
procedures approved by EPA for debris waste (S5000) in our August
7, 2003, letter. Therefore, we find their characterization is
adequate and no further action is needed to confirm that their
placement in the WIPP is allowed. For the remaining 600 drums of
ash belonging to the solid waste stream, further evaluation is
needed to assess the adequacy of waste characterization
processes. Until EPA completes its review of the AK process for
Hanford PFP solids and, if warranted, approves the subject waste
stream (S3000) for disposal at the WIPP, the Agency has directed
DOE not to resume shipment of the remaining TRU solid waste
containers from the Hanford PFP.
In most cases, EPA's inspections are conducted through on-site
inspections in which the operation of WC equipment and processes
can be demonstrated. However, the evaluation of AK relies almost
exclusively on a review of documentation. Thus, while such review
is often conducted on-site ( for convenience, in conjunction with
other on-site evaluations), it can be conducted at a remote
location with equal ease and rigor. This is especially true for
AK related to Hanford PFP solids. Hanford has not relied on the
AK information for physical and radiological characterization of
the PFP solids; the site relied exclusively on spectroscopic
systems to establish isotopic ratios. (Isotopic ratios are
sometime used to estimate individual radionuclides when the
equipment is not able to quantify them.) Because AK information
for the waste was not used to derive or extrapolate WC data
tracked for the waste, we expect little linkage with other WC
procedures, so there is no need to conduct an on-site inspection.
By thorough inspection of the AK documents we can determine
adequacy, completeness, sufficiency, and appropriateness of the
AK used for waste characterization.
For this inspection, EPA will conduct a desk-top review of the
most recent versions of the AK documents applicable to the
Hanford PFP solid waste that were used by the DOE auditors in
June 2003. As necessary, EPA will interview by phone the relevant
experts at Hanford PFP. Evaluation of the AK documentation
pertaining to the PFP solids will be limited to verification of
the waste pedigree--defense determination, S3000 waste category
determination, absence of liquids confirmation, and
classification as TRU waste. This evaluation will allow
sufficient evaluation of the adequacy, completeness, and
effectiveness of the applicable AK process.
Through this Federal Register notice, EPA is notifying the public
that EPA will evaluate Hanford's AK process and procedure
specific to the PFP solid waste. EPA will perform an inspection
of Hanford's AK process for the PFP solid waste in accordance
with Condition 3 of the WIPP Certification. If EPA determines as
a result of the evaluation that the AK documentation is adequate
and is well supported by the radioassay, radiography, and visual
examination results, we will notify DOE by letter and place the
letter in the official Air Docket in Washington, DC, as well as
in the informational docket locations in New Mexico. A letter of
approval will allow DOE to leave waste in WIPP underground panels
and to resume disposal of the remaining PFP solid waste
characterized by the approved processes from Hanford to WIPP. EPA
will not make a determination of compliance prior to completing
its AK documentation audit or before the 30-day comment period
has closed. We have separately directed DOE by letter what
measures or restrictions are necessary to prevent recurrence of
such violations of EPA's site- specific waste characterization
requirements. This letter is available in Docket A-98-49
(Washington, DC, and our three locations in New Mexico), as well
as online at the EDOCKET Web site (http://www.epa.gov/edocket
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.epa.gov/edocket] ) in Docket ID
No. OAR-2004-0477. Information on the certification decision is
filed in the official EPA Air Docket, Docket No. A-93-02 and is
available for review in Washington, DC, and at three EPA WIPP
informational docket locations in New Mexico. The dockets in New
Mexico contain only major items from the official Air Docket in
Washington, DC, plus those documents added to the official Air
Docket since the October 1992 enactment of the WIPP LWA.
Dated: November 23, 2004.
Robert Brenner, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation.
[FR Doc. 04-26480 Filed 11-29-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
*****************************************************************
45 Las Vegas SUN: Environmentalists See Trouble Ahead
By JOHN HEILPRIN ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP) - Environmentalists see some of their worst
fears playing out as President Bush moves to cement a
second-term agenda that includes getting more timber, oil and
gas from public lands and relying on the market rather than
regulation to curb pollution.
Bush's top energy priority - opening an Alaska wildlife refuge
to oil drilling - is shaping up as an early test of GOP gains in
Congress.
"This is going to be a definitional battle, and we're ready,"
said Deb Callahan, president of the League of Conservation
Voters.
Though the election didn't emphasize such issues, administration
officials believe the results validated their belief that many
environmental decisions are better made by the marketplace,
landowners and state and local governments.
James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on
Environmental Quality, said the administration will continue a
"partnership with the oil and gas sector" but also will work
with conservation organizations - as long as they are "willing
to engage constructively on defining priorities and practices in
domestic production."
Bush's environmental priority is to rewrite the Clean Air Act to
set annual nationwide limits on three major air pollutants from
power plants and to allow marketplace trading of pollution
rights rather than regulation to meet those goals.
He does not plan to change his mind on his rejection of the
Kyoto international climate treaty that would impose mandatory
caps on carbon dioxide emissions. "Kyoto's unworkable,"
Connaughton said.
Because of an environmental group's lawsuit, the EPA is
preparing to issue first-ever regulations to cut mercury
pollution from coal-burning power plants and new standards for
cutting soot in the air and reducing power plant pollution that
drifts between states.
Mike Leavitt, administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, foresees more EPA water monitoring and preparations
against chemical and biological attacks.
"I believe the mission that the president has given me in a
second term, and the agenda and the philosophy that was
validated by the election, was more progress, faster, being
achieved in a way that will maintain economic competitiveness as
a nation," he said.
Republicans in Congress plan to re-examine other landmark 1970s
laws: the Endangered Species Act protecting rare plant and
animal species and their habitats, and the National
Environmental Policy Act that requires the government to judge
beforehand if actions might damage natural resources.
One area where environmentalists and the White House could find
agreement is ocean issues. The administration is looking at
setting catch quotas for individual fish species, new
protections for fragile coral reefs and ecosystem-based
management of rivers and streams, Connaughton said.
Some huge regional issues also will get attention. They include
restoring the Florida Everglades, aiding the recovery of Pacific
Northwest salmon, improving water quality in the Great Lakes and
dealing with drought in the West and coastal erosion in
Louisiana.
The administration put off until after the election a final
decision on a plan to allow road building and logging on 58
million acres of remote forests where both are now banned.
Interior Secretary Gale Norton's agency is rewriting 162 plans
for managing about one of every 10 acres in the United States.
The decisions will affect whether wildlife protections or new
oil and gas drilling projects are favored. Norton wants to give
local governments more say.
Administration officials say they will more broadly apply the
"healthy forests" law that Congress approved in his first term.
It lets companies log large, commercially valuable trees in
national forests in exchange for clearing smaller, more
fire-prone trees and brush.
The administration wants forest managers to clear such trees and
underbrush from up to 4 million acres at risk of fire, about
300,000 acres more than current efforts. It hopes to double that
to 8 million acres within a decade, said Agriculture Department
Undersecretary Mark Rey, who directs forest policy.
Environmentalists still view the courts as their last resort.
The day after the election, the staff of law firm Earthjustice
"gathered to face the news that the most anti-environmental
administration will be back for four more years," Buck Parker,
the firm's executive director wrote supporters. But, he added,
"We're more determined than ever to carry on.
---
On the Net:
White House environment policy:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/environment
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/environment]
--
*****************************************************************
46 Deseret Nnews: Idaho nuclear waste cleanup continues
[deseretnews.com]
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
But doubts remain that feds will fulfill all terms of INEEL deal
By Bob Fick Associated Press
BOISE — Tons of radioactive waste remain stacked over eastern
Idaho's Snake River Plain Aquifer, where southern Idaho gets its
water. But his staunchest critics now concede some good came of
former Gov. Phil Batt's 1995 nuclear waste cleanup deal.
In 2002, radioactive waste is transported from the Idaho
National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory.
Randy Hayes, Associated Press
"I got everything I could get," Batt said in a recent
interview.
What Batt got was a commitment by the federal government
to completely remove all radioactive waste from the Idaho
National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory by 2036, while
also restricting new deliveries of nuclear waste to INEEL for
temporary storage.
Even Twin Falls podiatrist Peter Rickards, who was so
outraged by the agreement that he tried unsuccessfully to recall
Batt in 1996, is no longer completely negative.
"There has been a slight amount of progress," Rickards
admits, while quickly adding, "it is the least important of
problems that are looming over our water supply that are being
addressed."
That concern about the aquifer and the overall
environment continues to linger, fueled by the federal
government's efforts in court and Congress to change what state
and environmental groups believe are key provisions of the
agreement.
And there have been problems. The U.S. Department of
Energy, which is overseeing the cleanup, was fined in 2002 for
allegedly allowing radioactive material to leach into a nearby
aquifer. Still, officials insist contaminated groundwater has
not migrated beyond the laboratory's boundaries.
"The state is better off today than it was 10 years ago,"
says Jeremy Maxand, director of the Snake River Alliance that
was among the leaders of the failed 1996 attempt to overturn the
Batt agreement at the polls.
"Today, the state has oversight authority and authority
to actually go on the site and investigate and review
documents," Maxand says. "But I don't trust government
bureaucrats who live thousands and thousands of miles away from
our state and don't drink our water to make decisions about the
cleanup."
Actor Bruce Willis spent $145,000 in 1996 on the failed
campaign to convince Idaho voters to reject the agreement and
said at one point if the people supported the deal he would
start looking for another place to live. Willis, however, still
has his home and other interests in Hailey. Even former
Democratic Gov. Cecil Andrus, who laid the foundation for Batt
when he unilaterally halted further shipments of waste from
Colorado in October 1988, agrees with Maxand that Idaho citizens
have to watch the federal government like a hawk to make sure
they are not shortchanged.
Batt was only in office four days in 1995 when he was
confronted with the issue. A month earlier Andrus had refused to
let the Navy exceed a 1993 federal court limit and dump another
eight loads of spent reactor fuel at the Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. Batt was convinced to
backtrack. He said he did it to bring the issue of permanent
dumps outside Idaho to a head.
But the new governor quickly learned to play tough with
the Clinton administration. He drew the national spotlight as he
took advantage of the buildup of federally owned waste across
the nation to force the government to accept the limits and
deadlines in the unprecedented cleanup deal.
Batt and his allies, including Andrus, said it ensured
INEEL would not become a permanent dump. Critics said it
guaranteed the opposite, and they put the agreement to a voter
referendum in 1996. Voters sided with Batt by a nearly 2-to-1
margin.
But Beatrice Brailsford, who was in the middle of that
debate as a member of the Snake River Alliance, thinks the
campaign elevated the debate over waste storage at INEEL to a
new level.
"No matter how you voted on the initiative, you were
expressing concern about nuclear waste in Idaho and how to
manage it," Brailsford says. "The public involvement
demonstrated to our political leaders that nuclear waste was a
source of concern."
In the years since, over 3,500 cubic meters of plutonium-
contaminated waste have been shipped from INEEL to the federal
dump in New Mexico.
Over 200 cubic tons of highly radioactive spent nuclear
fuel has been moved to safer dry storage from deteriorating
water tanks and the rest has been put in state-of-the-art pools.
Scores of deteriorating and contaminated buildings have
been dismantled. Hundreds of thousands of gallons of highly
radioactive liquid waste have been solidified and a nearly equal
amount removed from the 14 in-ground tanks. At least seven tanks
have been cleaned, and three emptied with only residual amounts
of liquid left in the others.
And the Energy Department has intensified cleanup efforts
in recent years. "More on-the-ground cleanup work was
accomplished this year than any year in INEEL history," says
Beth Sellers, who runs the department's Idaho office.
For all the deadlines and benchmarks the government and
its contractors have met so far, the woman charged with making
sure they continue to stick to the agreement says major
challenges remain.
The government is currently behind in shipping
plutonium-contaminated waste to New Mexico and could miss the
deadline for moving 30,000 barrels between last year and the end
of next year, Kathleen Trever says, and the state is still in
court fighting federal attempts to leave waste at INEEL under
what the state claims are twisted interpretations of the
agreement.
"It will require continued diligence and political
attention and technical attention and financial attention to get
the job done," she says. "There is always the nameless faceless
bureaucrat back in Washington, D.C., who is pushing his own
interest without understanding what is going on in Idaho."
But Brailsford and Andrus agree it will take more
political and legal pressure to force full federal compliance.
Federal officials, Andrus warns, "will continue to try to
waffle and get out from under it, and the only way it will be
totally fulfilled is if we have a citizens suit before a federal
court. And I'm prepared to participate in that."
On the Net: Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory: [http://www.inel.gov] ; Snake River Alliance:
[http://www.snakeriveralliance.org]
© 2004 Deseret News Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
47 Idaho Statesman: INEEL charts a path to cheaper hydrogen fuel
11-30-2004
Project could lead to cleaner air, less use of petroleum
Mark Thiessen The Associated Press
Edition Date: 11-30-2004
SALT LAKE CITY If hydrogen created in a nuclear reactor ever
winds up fueling cars and homes and businesses decades from now,
it might all owe its thanks to the Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory and a pottery kiln in Salt Lake City.
The INEEL and a private electrochemistry company on Monday
announced they had been selected to lead a $2.6 million project
to develop hydrogen by high temperature electrolysis.
If successful, their efforts could lead to fuel that could reduce
the county's reliance on fossil fuels and cut greenhouse gas
emissions.
High temperature electrolysis, once thought to be cost
prohibitive, could become economically feasible by using the next
generation of nuclear reactors to split water into hydrogen and
oxygen using electric energy, officials with both Ceramatec Inc.,
and the INEEL said.
"We have been able to show that we can produce hydrogen at
commercially attractive rates in a very small unit and at
conditions that are typical of a high temperature, helium-cooled
reactor," said INEEL researcher Steve Herring.
The sample, about the size of a paperback book, had its
successful test in the kiln, used to simulate high temperatures
that would be created in the so-called Generation IV nuclear
reactors, about 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit.
The Department of Energy has given INEEL a 10-year mission to
develop the new generation reactor that would be safer, leave
less hazardous waste and produce hydrogen to fuel vehicles to the
future.
An INEEL spokesman said the development is "a crucial first step"
toward large-scale production of hydrogen from water, rather than
fossil fuels.
During the test, the sample placed inside the kiln had a
paper-thin sheet of ceramic inside it. At the elevated
temperatures, oxygen can migrate through the membrane. When an
electric voltage is applied, it extracts oxygen from the stream,
leaving hydrogen behind. The oxygen continues through the
membrane and is discharged on the other side.
There are other methods that could be used to produce the high
temperatures needed for the separation process, like harnessing
wind power with solar concentrators, but using a nuclear reactor
is the only one being considered by this team.
Researchers said the process of obtaining hydrogen by splitting
water using electric energy has been known for about 150 years,
but costs in terms of dollars and electric energy made it an
unpopular choice.
"High temperature electrolysis has the potential to change that
by reducing the amount of electrical energy required and using a
proportion of thermal energy in its place," said Joseph
Hartvigsen with Ceramatec.
Ceramatec and INEEL will partner with Hoeganaes Corp. in New
Jersey and the University of Washington for the project to
increase the sample size 100-fold over the next three years.
The Department of Energy is hoping for a demonstration of
commercial-scale hydrogen production using the process by 2017.
The government is considering building the necessary
next-generation power plant at INEEL, researcher Michael Anderson
said.
The small-scale experiment "is a significant step on the trail to
this commercial-scale demonstration," Anderson said. It's also
part of the energy department's goal of developing the technology
needed for commercially viable hydrogen.
Researchers admit it would be decades if not a generation before
hydrogen power and its infrastructure is as commonplace as the
one in place today for petroleum-based energy, such as refineries
and gas stations.
It's estimated that a 300 megawatt reactor could provide the
power to run 300,000 homes or provide transportation for about
500,000 people. Herring estimated that Americans use a gallon of
gasoline per person per day.
"That's a quarter of a billion gallons of gasoline use, so it's
important to make a dent in that," he said.
On the Net
• Ceramatec Inc.: www.ceramatec.com/ [http://www.ceramatec.com/]
• INEEL: www.inel.gov/ [http://www.inel.gov/]
• Energy Department: www.energy.gov/engine/
[http://www.energy.gov/engine/] content.do
*****************************************************************
48 lamonitor.com: DOE ponders kinks
The Online News Source for Los Alamos
ROGER SNODGRASS, [roger@lamonitor.com] , Monitor Assistant
Editor
The Department of Energy will begin a round of scoping meetings
next week on consolidating operations for its portable nuclear
power devices for space missions and national defense. Current
operations for the radioisotope power systems are a bit
scattered. They take place at three locations, including Los
Alamos National Laboratory, and involve frequent transfers of
special nuclear materials that are considered attractive to
potential terrorists.
To tighten up the process, DOE is thinking about combining
activities from LANL, the Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory in
Tennessee into a single location.
The Idaho Site is the preferred point of convergence, according
to DOE's formal announcement, published in the Federal Register
on Nov. 16 and corrected on Nov. 24.
DOE cited security advantages to be gained from reducing the
number of locations and limiting transportation of the nuclear
materials involved in the operations. Making the radioisotope
power system has three major steps: irradiating targets of
neptunium-237 in order to obtain plutonium-238, after an
additional chemical process; purifying and encapsulating the
Pu-238 in fuel form; and then assembling, testing and delivering
it to a federal agency, normally NASA.
The Pu-238 used to be produced at the Savannah River Site in
South Carolina. Then, when the reactors that produced it were
shut down, Pu-238 from reserve stockpiles at LANL was used,
supplemented by additional Pu-238 purchased from Russia for space
missions. The radioisotope power systems tend to be fairly small,
long-lasting nuclear-powered heating units, like those that are
warming the two rovers that continue to collect data on Mars,
after nearly a year on the planet.
In December 2000, DOE arrived at a new plan to fabricate the
Neptunium targets at Oak Ridge, irradiate them at the Idaho Site
and Oak Ridge, and carry out the Pu-238 extraction at Oak Ridge.
Before this plan could be carried out, the events of Sept. 11,
2001, intervened, and Np-237, a designated "special nuclear
material," could not be securely stored at Oak Ridge, so DOE
amended the plan to transfer the Np-237 in the form of an oxide
from Savannah River to the Idaho Site, where it could be secured.
The shipments are to begin in FY2005 and finish in FY2006.
Currently, the purification and encapsulation part of the process
is performed at the Plutonium Facility at LANL.
The assembly and testing part of the operation had been conducted
in yet another site until late 2002, at the Mound Site in
Miamisburg, Ohio. It was considered inadequately secure after
9/11, so the assembly and testing were moved to the Idaho Site.
The first RPS from the Idaho Site will be ready by September
2005. That heater is intended to support NASA's New Horizon
mission to Pluto and the Kuiper belt, launching in January 2006
and flying by Pluto in July 2015, according to NASA's schedule.
The current situation requires Neptunium to be stored at the
Idaho Site and shipped to Oak Ridge to fabricate targets, which
would be irradiated there and shipped back to Idaho for further
irradiation, then shipped back to Oak Ridge for processing into
Pu-238.
The Pu-238 then travels to Los Alamos to be purified and
encapsulated and forwarded to Idaho for the final assembly and
tests.
In order to pull everything together at the Idaho site, DOE will
need to establish a production facility for fabricating and
irradiating the Np-237 targets and chemically extracting the
Pu-238.
They will also need to construct a new secure facility for the
purification and encapsulation phase of the production that would
be taken over from Los Alamos.
The public meeting for Los Alamos is scheduled for Dec. 13 from
6-8:30 p.m. at the Los Alamos Golf Course, Main Room, 4250
Diamond Drive.
© 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
49 HealthDay: No Cancer Link to Nuclear Site Found
[editors@healthday.com] |
November 30, 2004
Those exposed to iodine 131 at Hanford facility decades ago
appear unharmed By E.J. Mundell HealthDay Reporter
TUESDAY, Nov. 30 (HealthDayNews) -- People who were exposed to
radioactive gas released by a nuclear weapons facility in
Washington state during the Cold War have not, as many suspect,
experienced higher rates of thyroid cancer, according to a new
study.
Government documents made public in 1986 revealed that, between
1944 and 1957, operators of the Hanford Nuclear Site in the
southeastern part of the state intentionally discharged
significant amounts of gas containing iodine 131 -- a radioactive
form of the element and a carcinogen linked to thyroid cancer --
into the skies around the plant.
Residents who lived in the greater Hanford area during that time
period, now known collectively as "downwinders," have pushed hard
since then to determine the potential health risks, if any, of
their exposure to this toxin.
The final draft publication of data, first released six years
ago, appears in the Dec. 1 issue of the Journal of the American
Medical Association. The findings may help ease the concerns of
some downwinders, but they are unlikely to convince everyone who
grew up there.
Hanford was the largest of several facilities the U.S. government
built to help develop and produce nuclear weapons and materials
in the 1940s and 1950s, beginning with the Manhattan Project.
Iodine 131 is produced during a nuclear explosion.
The study, involving 3,440 Hanford-area residents, found no
evidence linking exposure to airborne iodine 131 in childhood or
youth to a heightened lifetime risk for thyroid cancer, or other
thyroid disorders. The study compared lifetime rates for thyroid
disease in people born and raised in the Hanford area and exposed
to relatively high or low levels of the contaminant during those
years.
"This is certainly one of the most comprehensive investigations
of exposure of this type ever conducted," said study lead
researcher Scott Davis, a professor of epidemiology at the Fred
Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and the University of
Washington, both in Seattle.
He stressed that no epidemiological study can guarantee "absolute
proof" of a lack of carcinogenic effect. But he added, "In our
estimation, this study had sufficient statistical power to detect
effects of a magnitude that one would expect to see with this
level of radiation dose, had there been an effect."
Others remain somewhat more cautious. Jude Van Buren, an
epidemiologist with the Washington State Department of Health,
was born in 1953 in Pasco, Wash., close to the Hanford site, and
spent the first 20 years of her life in the area. She also served
as a longtime member of the Hanford Health Effects Subcommittee,
a panel convened by special federal charter to represent citizens
potentially affected by the Hanford emissions. That committee was
officially disbanded last fall.
Van Buren concurred that Davis' $18 million study "uses the best
tools we have available to us in science right now." But she said
that, even though the study group is large by most standards,
"it's still very difficult to get an epidemiological study big
enough to really understand very subtle changes in exposed vs.
unexposed individuals."
Further complicating matters, in Van Buren's opinion, is that
fact that the study doesn't include a true control group:
individuals totally unexposed to iodine 131.
"In the study, the 'exposed' group were in counties [around
Hanford] that were heavily exposed," she explained. "And what
they called the 'non-exposed' were actually in counties where
people still got exposure, but just not so much. So you're not
comparing no exposure to a lot of exposure."
Van Buren also noted that certain thyroid conditions, including a
dysfunction called autoimmune thyroiditis, are notoriously
difficult to diagnose, even by thyroid specialists.
"I think that it was felt at the time when this study was done
that this was the study that decided [the Hanford release] was
not a health problem," she said. "But I think there's a lot of
downwinders -- people who live in eastern Washington or who lived
there when they were growing up -- that probably don't believe
this. I myself am not sure there wasn't an effect."
A legacy of public suspicion hasn't helped matters, either.
Documents reveal that during and after World War II, the public
had little information on activities at the Hanford site, which
was used to reprocess nuclear fuel to gain plutonium for use in
atomic weapons.
"The whole Hanford project was a secret," Van Buren said. "In
1949, after the war, there was an intentional release of iodine
131 -- this was called the 'Green Run.' They released it into the
environment, knowingly exposing people, just so they could see
how far it would spread. They knew it was dangerous, but they
felt it was so minimal it wasn't going to be a problem."
"Those records weren't released until 1986, so it's hard to trust
the government if you've grown up in an area where you've never
been told the truth," she said.
Davis acknowledged that the findings, while strong, will still
leave many Hanford residents with lingering doubts. "Some people
were reassured by these results and felt more at ease knowing
there was no large, demonstrable effect from the Hanford
release," he said, "while others weren't convinced at all."
Van Buren -- whose opinions do not reflect those of the
Washington State Department of Health -- believes that exposed
individuals should remain cautiously optimistic and pay attention
to their health.
"I think one of the real benefits that's been gotten out of all
this looking, searching and contacting people is to make people
more aware of the fact there are things they need to monitor,
such as their thyroid," she said. "You need to take
responsibility for your health, making sure you're getting the
checkups that you need."
More information
To learn more about the Hanford site release, go to the
[http://www.doh.wa.gov/hanford/publications/overview/overview.htm
l] .
SOURCES: Scott Davis, Ph.D., professor of epidemiology, Fred
Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and University of Washington,
Seattle; Jude Van Buren Ph.D., R.N., epidemiologist and assistant
secretary, Washington State Department of Health, Olympia; Dec.
1, 2004, Journal of the American Medical Association
Last Updated: Nov-30-2004
Copyright © 2004 [http://www.healthday.com/] . All rights
*****************************************************************
50 [du-list] MTP Newsletter
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:30:27 -0800
Hello all -
MTP will be putting together our next print newsletter in December.
If anyone has updates about your work or issue-based or strategy-based
articles that you would like us to consider including, please send them
to Steve Taylor (steve@miltoxproj.org-preferably in Microsoft Word or .rtf
format)
by December 10.
--
Steve Taylor
National Organizer
Military Toxics Project
"Networking for Environmental Justice"
www.miltoxproj.org
(207) 783-5091
To Post a message, send it to: mtpbases@yahoogroups.com
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: mtpbases-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
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:
*****************************************************************