*****************************************************************
01/04/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.2
*****************************************************************
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 Xinhua: Iran's uranium decision depends on EU position - Iranian Amb
2 Guardian Unlimited: Congressional Delegation Going to N. Korea
3 Korea Herald: 'Seoul has no intention of undermining N. Korea'
4 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: EDITORIALS]It's time the North faced reality
5 Korea Times: 2-Track Diplomacy Needed to Solve Nuclear Stalemate
6 Korea Times: World Rushing Toward Nuclear Energy
7 US: [NukeNet] U.S. seeks to defang NPT
8 US: BUSH PLANS TO DESTROY NUCLEAR TREATY
9 [NYTr] IAEA Finds Secret Egyptian Nuclear Program
10 IAEA Finds Egypt Secret Nuclear Program
11 albawaba.com: Diplomats: Egypt made secret nuclear experiments
12 UPI: U.S.: Don't jump the gun on Egyptian nukes -
13 Journal of Turkish Weekly: Nuke trader gave boost to ME states
14 independent: Egypt carried out secret nuclear tests By Anne Penketh,
15 Las Vegas SUN: IAEA Finds Egypt Secret Nuclear Program
NUCLEAR REACTORS
16 US: [NukeNet] Bergen Record on NJ Nuke Plants - profit over safety
17 US: [NukeNet] AC Press Editorial - Fix The Pump!
18 US: [NukeNet] NRC MTG WITH PSEG POSTPONED TO 1/12
19 Latest/Tsunami Strike at Kalpakkam Nuclear Complex, India
20 UFO Sightings Near Iranian Nuke Plants
21 Tsunamis & Nuclear Power Plants
22 UK The Times: Need to invest in nuclear power
23 US: NRC: News Release - Region I - 2004-058 - NRC to Discuss Results
24 US: DECATUR DAILY: TVA deserves credit for expanding wind farm
25 US: NRC: Sacramento Municipal Utility District; Rancho Seco Nuclear
26 US: NRC: Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company, Maine Yankee Independent
27 US: AP Wire: Meeting on troubled nuclear plant pushed back a week
28 FT.com: Wilson kept public in dark over fears on safety of nuclear p
29 US: NC Times: San Onofre reactor not working at full capcity
30 US: SD Union-Tribune: Pump malfunction slows nuke reactor
31 US: Herald: Nuclear power can stop all the waste involved in wind fa
32 US: Platts: NRC to extend deadline for USEC intervention petitions f
33 US: GAZETTE ONLINE: Alliant plans auction to sell nuclear plant
34 EA: Cincinnati study of Chernobyl residents uncovers new cause of th
35 US: NRC: Notice of Issuance of License Amendment for Termination of
36 US: NRC: Sunshine Act; Meetings
NUCLEAR SAFETY
37 US: [du-list] DU researcher's sister to sue media re "Mrs Anthrax"
38 [du-list] Iraqi scientist's health causes concern
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
39 US: [shundahaialerts] Huntsman Executive Order Action!
40 US: Patent Examiner Comments on the Roy Process Invention
41 US: NRC: RIN 3150-AG71 Withdrawal of transpo reg
42 US: Bradenton Herald: Three found positive in Tallevast tests
43 Inyo Register: Experts: Yucca ‘backup' sites a necessity
44 US: Californian: Sen. Feinstein wants to tackle perchlorate
45 US: Boston Globe: Opinion The enemy within
46 US: North Adams Transcript: New perchlorate study results to be rele
47 Guardian Unlimited: Italy 'to export nuclear waste to UK'
48 US: Vermont Guardian: Native American lands poisoned by military tes
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
49 Rocky Mountain News: Scientific journal says Flats cleanup not enoug
50 KTVB.COM: Delegation asks DOE to pick cleanup contractor sooner
51 Casper Star-Tribune: Rocky Flats retaining ponds contaminated with r
OTHER NUCLEAR
52 [du-list] DU in the news - 5th Jan. 05
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 Xinhua: Iran's uranium decision depends on EU position - Iranian Ambassador
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2005-01-03 22:31:36
MOSCOW, Jan. 3 (Xinhuanet) -- Iranian Ambassador to Russia
Gholam Reza Shafei said here Monday that Iran's Nov. 23 decision
to suspend its uranium enrichment program is provisional and
linked to the European Union's (EU) position on the issue, the
Interfax news agency reported.
"The program cannot be suspended indefinitely. It cannot
continue for more than several months," Shafei said.
"The suspension will continue as long as Europe takes steps
to meet its obligations" in compliance with agreements reached
with the EU, Shafei said.
"If Europe violates its obligations, Iran will not abide by
this agreement either," Shafei warned.
Following negotiations with France, Britain and Germany last
November, Iran suspended its uranium enrichment program, a move
envisioned by an earlier resolution adopted by the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The IAEA's so-called "European trio's" resolution urged Iran
tostrictly adhere to its decision to suspend uranium enrichment
activities if it did not want the issue to be referred to the UN
Security Council.
Shafei said Iran "did not stop its uranium enrichment
program. It suspended it in compliance with the agreement with
three European countries -- Germany, Britain and France -- that
acted onbehalf of the European Union."
The Iranian ambassador said the step was also taken to create
an atmosphere of trust with the international community and to
show that Iran's nuclear program "is of an absolutely peaceful
nature."
Shafei said Iran's cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog
hadbeen successful and that Iran plans to continue its
comprehensive contacts with the IAEA.
IAEA experts will have no serious problems inspecting
facilities in Iran and all steps Iran takes regarding its nuclear
program are under IAEA control, said the ambassador. Enditem
Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
2 Guardian Unlimited: Congressional Delegation Going to N. Korea
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday January 4, 2005 8:01 PM
By LIZ SIDOTI
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Members of Congress plan to travel to
Pyongyang, North Korea next week, more than a year after a
scheduled trip to the communist-led country was scuttled because
of White House opposition.
This time, President Bush's administration is not standing in
the way of the bipartisan delegation, Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa.,
said Tuesday.
Weldon, who is coordinating the trip, led a group of lawmakers
to the country in May 2003. They were the first U.S. officials
to visit North Korea since it acknowledged having a clandestine
nuclear program.
The delegation sought to return in October 2003, but Weldon
scrapped the trip when the White House objected. Since then,
Weldon said, the administration has notified him that it would
approve a return trip.
Weldon said the visit to Pyongyang will be part of an ongoing
effort to keep dialogue open between the United States and North
Korea. ``This is not just some Johnny-come-lately or
shoot-from-the-hip approach,'' he told reporters during a news
conference in the House Armed Services committee room.
Like the previous visit to North Korea, Weldon said lawmakers on
the upcoming trip will simply attempt to show North Koreans
``the real face of America.''
``We don't go as diplomats,'' Weldon said. ``We're not going
over to negotiate anything,'' he said, or to represent Bush.
The delegation, which leaves the United States on Sunday, will
meet with high-ranking government officials and visit schools,
shopping centers and other community areas in Pyongyang.
The lawmakers also will visit Russia, South Korea, China and
Japan, the four other countries in negotiations with North Korea
over its nuclear weapons program. At the end of the trip, the
delegation also plans to fly to southeast Asia to deliver
supplies to the tsunami-stricken communities.
The other members of the delegation are: Reps. Solomon Ortiz,
D-Texas, Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, Fred Upton, R-Mich., Roscoe
Bartlett, R-Md., and Eliot Engel, D-N.Y.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
3 Korea Herald: 'Seoul has no intention of undermining N. Korea'
2005.01.05
By Joo Sang-min
[http://www.voiceware.co.kr]
Unification Minister Chung Dong-young said yesterday that South
Korea harbors no hostile intention to threaten the North Korean
regime, declaring that Seoul's earlier policy to compete against
the communist country has been discarded.
He also ruled out possible mass defections of North Korean
refugees in the future, saying the North could feel threatened by
any large defection.
Seoul airlifted 468 North Korean refugees from a Southeast Asian
country in July in the largest single mass defection since the
Korean War. The North accused the South of kidnapping the group
and refused to take part in inter-Korean talks.
"Undermining the North with North Korean defectors is not our
policy," Chung said in a MBC radio program. "The policy to
compete with each system is already obsolete."
His remarks are seen as a government effort to assure the
regime's safety and to resume the stalled talks.
How the North will interpret the comments remains unclear, said
Paik Hak-soon, a senior researcher at the private Sejong
Institute.
Chung said if the North has a sense of stability it would help
resolve the standoff over its nuclear weapons program.
He said the South will push for inter-Korean talks in parallel
with ongoing multilateral talks aimed at resolving the issue of
the North's nuclear ambitions.
"It is not like the talks could be possible only when the
six-party talks are resumed. (We) will push for the talks in
parallel (with the six-party talks) and will do so in the
future," Chung said.
The minister ruled out the possibility of any summit talks soon,
but said such a meeting to discuss peace on the peninsula could
be considered when the multilateral talks go smoothly.
President Roh Moo-hyun earlier this month expressed his hope that
a second inter-Korean summit would be held somewhere, sometime,
although he said this does not appear feasible right now
considering the circumstances.
Chung predicted that cooperation in the agricultural field could
provide a breakthrough in bilateral relations.
He said South Korea is considering greatly expanding cooperation
with its impoverished northern neighbor through agriculture.
In a New Year message, Pyongyang called on the military to
concentrate efforts in agriculture to help boost agricultural
production and strengthen the economy.
*****************************************************************
4 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: EDITORIALS]It's time the North faced reality
[http://joongangdaily.joins.com]
January 5, 2005 KST 11:14 (GMT+9)
This year will be the turning point in the nuclear crisis on
the Korean Peninsula. The international community is showing a
strong resolve to make a breakthrough at all costs and resume
the stalled progress toward ending Pyeongyang's nuclear
aspirations.
The United States has already indicated that it intends to refer
the matter to the UN Security Council if a resolution is not
reached soon. Japan has made its alliance with the United States
its top foreign affairs priority, and Tokyo will support
Washington's position on the issue. China, taking the Taiwan
issue into account, can no longer support North Korea
unconditionally.
North Korea's economic situation is worsening due to inflation
and the continuing food crisis. The regime's New Year's address
put rare emphasis on agricultural production, an indication that
conditions are desperate. Now is the time for the North to make
a wise decision: to give up its nuclear arms program and become
a responsible member of the international community. That is the
shortcut by which it can achieve its long-time goals of regime
security and economic recovery.
Pyeongyang, however, failed in its New Year's address to give
any indication about how the crisis might be resolved, though it
did make a meaningless rhetorical demand that U.S. forces leave
Korea. Pyeongyang still seems to have a poor grasp of
international affairs. The regime argued that the Koreas must
unite to counter U.S. oppression. While excluding the South from
nuclear talks, saying it will only talk to the United States,
the North is urging the South to join it in facing down U.S.
pressure. That is extremely illogical nonsense.
At the end of 2004, a North Korean Foreign Ministry statement
said Pyeongyang would watch and see what the Bush
administration's North Korea policy would be in its second term.
But the U.S. position is firm and resolute. It will provide
regime security and economic assistance in return for the
North's promise to freeze its nuclear arms programs and
dismantle its facilities. Otherwise, Washington will take a
hard-line stance toward the North. There is almost no chance
that this policy will change. Other parties involved in the
six-nation talks, including South Korea, share the position. It
is time for the North to face reality and rejoin the six-nation
talks, and make clear that it will resolve the nuclear crisis
through negotiation.
2005.01.03
[http://joongangdaily.joins.com/faq.html]
*****************************************************************
5 Korea Times : 2-Track Diplomacy Needed to Solve Nuclear Stalemate
Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Special
By Koh Yu-hwan
Professor of North Korean studies at Dongguk University
The Roh Moo-hyun administration, which was inaugurated with a
big project to solve North Korea¡¯s nuclear ambition, placed its
priority on peace on the Korean peninsula. The Seoul government
managed the crisis situation stably by arranging the six-nation
talks to resolve the North¡¯s nuclear programs in a peaceful
way. On the economic front, the Roh administration made progress
in systematizing the three inter-Korean cooperation projects _
Mt. Kumgang tourism programs, the connection of roads and
railways and the opening of the Kaesong Industrial Complex.
The Seoul government¡¯s efforts to build confidence between the
militaries of the two countries, although rudimentary, also
deserve credit. But problems occurred as the inter-Korean
relations have been interlocked with the stalled international
efforts to address the North¡¯s nuclear programs. It is time for
South Korea to find substantial ways to improve the cross-border
relations and re-establish the Seoul-Washington ties for a
breakthrough in the nuclear crisis under the second term of U.S.
President George W. Bush.
President Roh Moo-hyun, who promised to succeed his predecessor
Kim Dae-jung¡¯s ``sunshine¡¯¡¯ policy of engaging North Korea
and to abide by the historic June 15 declaration, is currently
trying to draw support from the international community for
early settlement of the North¡¯s nuclear programs, which he
believes is a precondition to go ahead with the current
administration¡¯s ``peace and prosperity¡¯¡¯ policies on the
Korean peninsula.
During the Seoul-Washington summit on May 15, 2003, South Korea
raised the pressure on North Korea by a few notches by
``conditionally linking¡¯¡¯ the nuclear issue with inter-Korean
relations and warning of the possibility of reviewing
``additional measures¡¯¡¯ against Pyongyang if it fails to react
to the international efforts to solve its nuclear issue in a
peaceful way. Ever since its inauguration two years ago, the Roh
government has placed importance on the international
cooperation while seeking the principle of solving the nuclear
issue peacefully by using dialogue and pressure at the same
time.
The Roh administration virtually related the nuclear programs of
the communist state with the extension of inter-Korean business
cooperation programs. The linkage of ``politics and economy¡¯¡¯
was the main reason for Seoul to react passively to the
inter-Korean business cooperation programs as the
Pyongyang-Washington relations were further aggravated due to
the nuclear issue. Roh could only maintain the status quo rather
than developing other joint business programs beyond the three
inter-Korean cooperation projects that were launched by the Kim
Dae-jung administration.
Washington¡¯s hawkish policies toward Pyongyang and the
deteriorated relationship between the two countries also had a
negative effected on the inter-Korean cooperation programs. The
U.S. maintained its stance that it will not support Seoul¡¯s
efforts to begin new economic cooperation programs with the
North or any expansion of Seoul¡¯s aid program for Pyongyang
unless the North¡¯s nuclear issue is settled clearly. As a
result, the South could not push through with its plans to
provide financial aid for the North¡¯s economic development
programs as well as to invest in the North¡¯s infrastructure,
such as electricity, transportation and communication
facilities.
The Seoul government¡¯s pressure on the North, based on its
priority to solve the nuclear issue first and a series of
mishaps that have occurred after July 2004, drove the
inter-Korean relations back to a stalemate. So the first thing
that is needed to resume the government-level talks is to
restore mutual confidence. Roh¡¯s remarks in Los Angeles on Nov.
13, before holding the Seoul-Washington summit, giving his
understanding on the North¡¯s efforts to develop nuclear
weapons, were seemingly intended to moderate the Washington
government¡¯s hawkish policies toward Pyongyang and to restore
the North¡¯s confidence in the South. He might have thought that
the confidence-building process should go ahead to normalize the
cross-border relations and further search for ways to hold the
second round of the inter-Korean summit.
Over the past two years, the Seoul government has tried to solve
the inter-Korean issues by binding them with the nuclear problem
under a settled policy that it will expedite inter-Korean
cooperation programs after peacefully solving the North¡¯s
nuclear program, even though it has superficially tried to seek
the two track policies of finding a solution and ways to develop
the inter-Korean relations at the same time. Given that the
North¡¯s nuclear problem requires long-term efforts, the Roh
administration¡¯s North Korea policy should be changed from the
``gradual approach¡¯¡¯ of promoting inter-Korean cooperation
programs after finding a solution to the nuclear issue to the
``parallel approach¡¯¡¯ of trying to achieve the two aims at the
same time. It is necessary for the Seoul government to form
inter-Korean relations that can get over the nuclear issue
rather than be tied down by it.
The Roh administration should use the strengthened
Seoul-Washington ties and the developed inter-Korean relations
to induce negotiations and concessions between the U.S. and
North Korea. To enhance the chances of solving the nuclear issue
in a peaceful way, the two Koreas should search for some
progress in the peace process by taking the lead in
reconciliation and cooperation on the Korean peninsula, even
under the nuclear crisis situation.
The Seoul government¡¯s anxiety over the current inter-Korean
relations would be grave as the government-level talks between
the two Koreas have been stalled although it went through
relatively well in the past, even under the nuclear crisis
situation. When the conflict between the U.S. and North Korea
continues, it will be helpful for Seoul to hold an open dialogue
channel with Pyongyang in managing the crisis situation on the
peninsula. The North will also get help from dialogue with the
South in reducing the pressure from the U.S. If the inter-Korean
relations continue backtracking, outside powers will look down
on the two Koreas, internationalizing the Korean peninsula
problems.
The North should return to the negotiation table and dispel
mutual misunderstandings, thus building mutual confidence rather
than underlining cooperation between the two Koreas by words
only. The Seoul government should come up with a new set of
strategies toward the U.S. and North Korea and try to find a
breakthrough in the grave situation on the Korean peninsula.
South Korea¡¯s influence on the North will become greater if
Seoul¡¯s cooperation with Washington goes well.
Developed inter-Korean relations will also strengthen Seoul¡¯s
stance in U.S. policies. The Seoul government should prepare for
multilateral strategies that can usher in the ``peaceful and
prosperous era of Northeast Asia¡¯¡¯ by advancing the
Seoul-Washington and Seoul-Pyongyang relations at the same time,
even though it will be very difficult.
01-04-2005 20:37
*****************************************************************
6 Korea Times: World Rushing Toward Nuclear Energy
Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Technology
By Kim Tae-gyu Staff Reporter
Sky-high crude oil prices prod many governments from across the
world to seek alternative energy sources other than petroleum,
particularly in nuclear power.
The Kori nuclear power station in Pusan, left, began operations
in 1978. The right photo shows a team of investigators checking
for radiation during a recent emergency training at the plant.
This marks a major turnaround from the hitherto widespread
anti-nuclear policies, which have been generally adopted after a
series of disasters of the 1979 Three Mile Island accident and
the 1986 Chernobyl catastrophe.
The United States now looks to license novel nuclear plants,
putting an end to the nation¡¯s quarter-century moratorium on
new nuclear facilities after the 1979 Three Mile Island debacle.
Other countries like France, Finland and China also follow the
suit of the U.S. and in related measures, some nations,
including the Netherlands and Switzerland, watered down their
original plans of scrapping nuclear power plants.
The Netherlands reversed its plan of closing down Borssele
reactors and Switzerland voted down the draft of expelling
nuclear plants on a phased basis.
In comparison, Korea is now suffering headwinds in expanding its
dependence on nuclear power as amply demonstrated by its failure
both in forging ahead with new reactors and finding a nuclear
waste dump site.
Still the pros and cons continue to confront on nuclear power,
which is efficient but has a potential detriment, with both
sides not likely to find the same page any time soon.
Proponents point out the nuclear power technology emits
virtually no airborne pollutants and overall far less waste
material than fossil fuel-based power plants.
They also claim the controversial source of energy is much more
cost-effective than other electricity-generating methods.
By contrast, opponents take issue with the radioactive products
released by reactors into the environment and the irritatingly
long period needed to decomposing the nuclear waste.
Experts point out the spent nuclear fuel needs to be decayed for
10,000 years for it not pose a threat to health and safety.
Nobody can ensure that the material can be safeguarded over such
a long period of time.
All in all, anti-nuclear campaigners assert that both immediate
and long-term safety concerns regarding the disposal of the
nuclear wastes overwhelm any cost-related benefits.
Nuclear Power and Accidents
The world¡¯s first nuclear reactors were used to generate
plutonium for weapons and the Soviet Union and western countries
started to expand their nuclear research to non-military uses of
atom from the mid-1950s.
In late 1951, electric power from a nuclear-powered generator
was produced for the first time in the U.S., but the Soviet
Union churned out nuclear power for commercial use first in
1954.
Other countries followed the Soviet Union and the U.S. as
relating technologies were further developed and the two-rounds
of energy crises in the 1970s spurred a nuclear building boom
across the world.
But On March 28, 1979 an accident took place, which moved the
pendulum in disfavor of the nuclear power, at an American island
called Three Mile Island (TMI) in Pennsylvania.
The TMI nuclear reactor suffered a partial core meltdown in
early morning of the day and some scientists believe the
radiation vented during the event.
Although no identifiable injuries due to radiation occurred
(there is some opposition regarding the issue), it was a serious
economic and public relations disaster and furthered a steep
decline in popularity of nuclear power.
Approximately 70 percent of the U.S. general approved of nuclear
power before the accident, but the TMI mishap caused the support
to plunge to below 50 percent.
In answer to the public backlash on nuclear safety lapse, the
U.S. established more stringent federal requirements and
actually put an embargo on new nuclear facilities.
More concretely, no U.S. nuclear power plant has been authorized
to begin construction since 1979 and just 53 of 129 plants
approved at the time of TMI were ever completed.
Russia¡¯s Chernobyl explosion in 1986, which evacuated more
than 100,000 people due to radioactive particles, dealt the
second blow to nuclear power protagonists and resulted in more
strengthened regulations worldwide.
By far more rigid regulations hiked the costs of operating a
reactor, discouraging constructors from building new nuclear
plants together with strident opposition from a crop of
anti-nuclear campaigners.
Mushrooming Nuclear Power Plants
However, things started to change in favor of the nuclear power
as the crude oil prices sky rocket and the global regulations on
green house gas emission become strict.
Oil prices have surged of late, threatening the energy security
by cranking up the economic vulnerability to an oil price shock
to many oil-importing countries like Korea.
Dubai oil sold $28 per barrel into 2004 but the price soared
over $41 in August and stabilized in the neighborhood of $34
during the late last year.
According to the state-funded Korea National Oil Corp., Dubai
oil prices are forecast to remain above the $30-per-barrel mark
for this year, possibly fluctuating between $33 and $35.
The private Korea Petroleum Association also presented similar
prediction but it said Dubai oil prices will likely jump to an
average $45 a barrel if demand explodes as in 2004 and massive
terrorism result in production cuts or distribution bottleneck.
Dubai oil prices have the foremost repercussions on the Korean
economy as roughly 80 percent of the nation¡¯s oil, amounting to
about 750 million barrels per annum, comes from the Middle East.
The emission problems of fossil fuels are another stumbling
block in sticking to the hitherto mainstream electricity source
of the steam power generation.
Under the Kyoto Protocol agreed in 1997, industrialized
countries will have to reduce their collective emissions of
greenhouse gases, which are suspected of causing global warming,
by 5.2 percent in 2010 compared to the year 1990.
This legally binding agreement raises concerns for many
countries, which have hinged on fossil fuels for their energy
sources because they are one of main culprits of the greenhouse
gases.
Haunted by a scenario of extreme crude oil price volatility and
the restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions in the power
sector, the world started to tilt toward nuclear power again.
The U.S. Department of Energy disclosed last November a pair of
nuclear reactors would be established at North Anna, Virginia
and also the Nuclear Regulatory Commission recommended a month
later that the permit should be issued.
It represents a major turnaround of the U.S.¡¯ decades-long
policy principle that the nation doesn¡¯t approve new nuclear
construction outright after the 1979 TMI accident.
France where the nuclear energy source supplies up to 80 percent
of the country¡¯s electricity recently said its state-owned
utility would build a prototype next-generation nuclear plants.
France opted to pour three billion euros for the project, which
will go ahead with the European Pressurized Water Reactor for
1,600-megawatt model by 2010.
Electricite de France, the state-owned French electricity
group, said the envisioned nuclear plants will be safer, cheaper
and more environmentally friendly that those in use.
The decision triggers Britain to rethink its nuclear option in
the face of soaring oil prices, dwindling North Sea oil and gas
reserves as well as setbacks in developing renewables.
The third nuclear plant is now under construction in the
Olikiluoto region of Finland and China also plans to establish
more than 20 nuclear reactors by 2020.
The Netherlands shelved its original plan of closing down
Borssele plant and Switzerland reversed the draft of winding
down nuclear power stations on a phased basis.
In a nutshell, economic benefits start to outweigh safety
concerns of nuclear power plants in the above-mentioned
situation change and the ripple effect is now being felt.
As of the end of 2003, the latest statistics available, the
world had 523 nuclear reactors and the energy accounted for
about 12 percent of the global power demands, according to the
Korea Hydro &Nuclear Power (KHNP).
``Combined with more stringent restrictions on greenhouse gases
and swelling crude oil prices, the energy security woes increase
the attractiveness of the nuclear generation,¡¯¡¯ KHNP official
Shin Bo-gyoun said.
Renewable Energies
In response to the emerging global trend of building up nuclear
power stations, environmentalists continue to urge a paradigm
shift to renewable energy.
Renewable energy refers to energy from a source which can be
managed so that it is not subject to depletion at least in a
human time scale.
It includes the sun¡¯s ray, wind, waves, rivers, tides, biomass
and geothermal while excluding sources which are dependent upon
limited resources such as fossil fuels and nuclear fission power.
The top advantage of aforementioned renewable energy sources is
their dearth of greenhouse gases and other emission in
comparison with fossil fuel combustion.
Environmental activists and civic groups have stressed wider
adoption of new energy sources as articulated by Gerd Leipold,
executive director of Greenpeace International at the
International Solar Cities Conference held in Taegu last
November.
``A massive and urgent expansion in the use of renewable energy
sources is the only answer to the twin threats of climate change
and nuclear proliferation,¡¯¡¯ Leipold said.
Ironically enough, however, the environmentally friendly power
sources sometimes hurt the nature. For instance, wind turbines
make intolerable noises to nearby residents and can be hazardous
to flying birds while hydroelectric dams can create barriers for
migrating fish.
And renewables have a visual disadvantage as shown by the large
solar-electric installations outside of cities
More fundamentally inherent barrier is the fact that the
renewable power sources are typically providing low-intensity
energy when compared to legacy mainstream ways.
As a result, the costs of electricity production from the
renewable sources are pretty high that they are not the serious
competitors yet to base-load power supply except in very limited
situation.
``Few, if any, environmentalists pay their attention to a grim
reality that the costs of electricity from the current renewable
energies are up to 18 times higher than those of electricity
made from nuclear or coals,¡¯¡¯ said Yoo Yun-baek, an official
of the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy (MOCIE).
As of the end of 2003, Yoo said nuclear stations cost Korea
slightly over 40 won to make a 1kilowatt electricity while the
expense stood at about 700 won for solar energy.
Some analysts point out the conservationists should also take
into account the world¡¯s poor, numbering 2 billion people or a
third of the total population, who have no access to commercial
energy at all and needs cheap electricity.
Korean Option
In the wake of the energy crises in the 1970s, Korea has
desperately sought energy security policy to reduce its lopsided
dependence on oils.
As the sixth-biggest nuclear power producing country in the
planet, Korea today operates a total of 19 nuclear reactors,
which combine to provide 40 percent of the nation¡¯s total
electricity requirement.
According to the MOCIE, the country plans to install nine more
reactors by 2015 with the aim of increasing the role of nuclear
fission.
``In deciding the proportion of respective power sources in our
energy mix, we have three criteria of environmental
friendliness, economical efficiency and supply-demand stability.
Based on the three benchmarks, we think we need to increase the
number of nuclear reactors,¡¯¡¯ said Yoo of the MOCIE.
Unlike the government scheme, however, Korea¡¯s new reactor in
Wolsong, North Kyongsang Province, is suffering a delay of
longer than one and a half years than its initial schedule and
more serious distress lies in finding sites for nuclear refuse.
After setting up a policy for building a nuclear wastes storage
site 18 years ago, the nation has yet to complete possibly the
longest-pending state project.
As the most recent setback in last November, no region applied
to accommodate a low-and intermediate-level radioactive waste
dump, which the government pushed to build by 2008.
A permanent storage site would be available no earlier than
2010 even if the construction starts today while the interim
storage facilities of nuclear plants will run out of space from
2008.
To site the right place, the Korean government vowed to provide
subsidies to townships which host nuclear waste dumps in an
effort to improve their local attractiveness to no avail.
In fact, fixing the waste site has become extremely difficult in
many nations as potential neighbors to nuclear facilities have
increasingly protested against them on the grounds of
environmental dangers.
In this climate, costs of decommissioning the retired nuclear
power reduce its commercial viability and some even go so far as
to say the nation should jettison nuclear fission as an energy
source.
From the perspective of both the energy security and economy,
in response, Yoo pointed out such assertion doesn¡¯t make any
sense that the country producing not a drop of petroleum should
scrap the energy source, which supplies about 40 percent of its
total energy demands.
One conservative estimate puts the additional annual energy cost
at up to $6.5 billion in replacing Korea¡¯s nuclear power with
thermal power.
Experts point out the answer would stand somewhere between the
two extremes of hard-core nuclear proponents and aggressive
anti-nuclear activists.
``The bottom line is that we have to find a balance between
safety and cost. Nuclear power retains the potential to be a
sustainable energy source and we should keep a tab on its
detrimental facet at the same time,¡¯¡¯ Kyung Hee University
professor Hwang Joo-ho said.
Hwang said Korea¡¯s dependency on nuclear energy should reach at
least 50 percent for several considerations like national energy
security although social consensus should come first before such
measures.
voc200@koreatimes.co.kr 01-04-2005 19:28
*****************************************************************
7 [NukeNet] U.S. seeks to defang NPT
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 14:46:47 -0800
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
Hi, colleagues:
This article, originally posted to the abolition caucus list serve by
Regina, says the US will formally abrogate commitments it made to
implementation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. This deserves our immediate
attention. For, the U.S. follows this path, it will undermine both the
treaty and the review process for the treaty -- which is the method by
which compliance is defined and measured by the signatory states. This
U..S. action, if carried out, will also further unravel the fragile
nonproliferation regime and speed the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
As a silver lining in this dark cloud, we analysts and activists can (I
hope) be proactive and catalyze positive action in the U.S. Congress and in
capitals in other nations around the world. Please read, and then let's
discuss what actions large and small we can and should undertake.
Further, if you see this story in other news outlets, please circulate
those articles as well -- especially if they contain additional information
and quotes. I for one would be most interested in seeing them.
Peace,
Marylia
U.S. seeks to defang NPT
Friday, December 31, 2004 at 17:43 JST
(Kyodo News)
WASHINGTON -- The United States plans to suggest that a 2005
international conference to review the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
should invalidate a document adopted at a 2000 meeting in which five
nuclear powers committed to an "unequivocal undertaking" to a
nuclear-free world, according to U.S. government and congressional
sources.
A U.S. government official described the final accord adopted during
the 2000 NPT review conference as a "simply historical document" and
pointed out the need to adopt a new document reflecting drastic changes
in international security conditions, including the Sept 11 terrorist
attacks in 2001.
Such an attempt could be interpreted by nonnuclear powers as reduced
commitment by the United States to nuclear disarmament and could
jeopardize the nonproliferation regime under the 1968 treaty by
possibly prompting countries such as North Korea and Iran to accelerate
their nuclear weapons development, critics say.
In the 2000 review conference, 187 signatories to the NPT adopted the
document, which includes 13 steps to nuclear disarmament to be
implemented by the five powers ? the United States, Britain, China,
Russia and France ? as well as nonnuclear powers.
"We think the international situation with regard to nonproliferation
has changed so radically that the review conference should not be
looking backward at the past final document," said the U.S. official in
reference to the conference scheduled for May in New York.
The official said the administration of President George W. Bush "no
longer supports all of the 13 steps" because some aspects of those
steps are outdated.
For example, the 2000 accord called for strengthening the 1972
antiballistic missile treaty, which barred the United States and Russia
from deploying full-scale national missile defense systems. However,
the ABM treaty was terminated in 2002 with the U.S. withdrawal.
"There is no such thing as implementing the 13 steps," the official
said, adding the administration does not see the final accord as "being
a road map or binding guideline or anything like that."
"We need to be pursuing a new document that reflects what has happened
over the last five years," the official said.
A congressional source also pointed out that an article in the NPT
which requires nuclear powers to make a serious commitment to
disarmament was created against the backdrop of a nuclear arms race
between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
The source said that Washington does not intend to make the 13 steps a
precondition for negotiations at the 2005 review conference and that
those measures will not become a real issue at the meeting.
Thomas Graham, former special representative of the U.S. president for
arms control, nonproliferation and disarmament, said he believes the
U.S. delegation at the review conference "would be under very firm
instructions not to agree to" the point of an "unequivocal undertaking"
to total elimination of nuclear weapons.
"If the U.S. is not going to observe its commitment, then the treaty
becomes politically unbalanced," said Graham, who served under all U.S.
administrations from President Jimmy Carter to Bill Clinton.
He expressed concern about possible nuclear proliferation, saying
nonnuclear powers could start developing nuclear weapons. They could
follow in the footsteps of India and Pakistan, non-parties to the NPT
that conducted nuclear tests in 1998, Graham said.
ends
Marylia Kelley
Executive Director
Tri-Valley CAREs
(Communities Against a Radioactive Environment)
2582 Old First Street
Livermore, CA USA 94551
- is our web site address. Please visit us
there!
(925) 443-7148 - is our phone
(925) 443-0177 - is our fax
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
8 BUSH PLANS TO DESTROY NUCLEAR TREATY
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 14:42:04 -0800
----- Original Message -----
From: Global Network
To: Global Network
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 2:48 AM
Subject: BUSH PLANS TO DESTROY NUCLEAR TREATY
U.S. seeks to defang NPT
Friday, December 31, 2004 at 17:43 JST
(Kyodo News)
WASHINGTON - The United States plans to suggest that a 2005
international conference to review the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
should invalidate a document adopted at a 2000 meeting in which five
nuclear powers committed to an "unequivocal undertaking" to a
nuclear-free world, according to U.S. government and congressional
sources.
A U.S. government official described the final accord adopted during
the 2000 NPT review conference as a "simply historical document" and
pointed out the need to adopt a new document reflecting drastic changes
in international security conditions, including the Sept 11 terrorist
attacks in 2001.
Such an attempt could be interpreted by nonnuclear powers as reduced
commitment by the United States to nuclear disarmament and could
jeopardize the nonproliferation regime under the 1968 treaty by
possibly prompting countries such as North Korea and Iran to accelerate
their nuclear weapons development, critics say.
In the 2000 review conference, 187 signatories to the NPT adopted the
document, which includes 13 steps to nuclear disarmament to be
implemented by the five powers ? the United States, Britain, China,
Russia and France ? as well as nonnuclear powers.
"We think the international situation with regard to nonproliferation
has changed so radically that the review conference should not be
looking backward at the past final document," said the U.S. official in
reference to the conference scheduled for May in New York.
The official said the administration of President George W. Bush "no
longer supports all of the 13 steps" because some aspects of those
steps are outdated.
For example, the 2000 accord called for strengthening the 1972
antiballistic missile treaty, which barred the United States and Russia
from deploying full-scale national missile defense systems. However,
the ABM treaty was terminated in 2002 with the U.S. withdrawal.
"There is no such thing as implementing the 13 steps," the official
said, adding the administration does not see the final accord as "being
a road map or binding guideline or anything like that."
"We need to be pursuing a new document that reflects what has happened
over the last five years," the official said.
A congressional source also pointed out that an article in the NPT
which requires nuclear powers to make a serious commitment to
disarmament was created against the backdrop of a nuclear arms race
between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
The source said that Washington does not intend to make the 13 steps a
precondition for negotiations at the 2005 review conference and that
those measures will not become a real issue at the meeting.
Thomas Graham, former special representative of the U.S. president for
arms control, nonproliferation and disarmament, said he believes the
U.S. delegation at the review conference "would be under very firm
instructions not to agree to" the point of an "unequivocal undertaking"
to total elimination of nuclear weapons.
"If the U.S. is not going to observe its commitment, then the treaty
becomes politically unbalanced," said Graham, who served under all U.S.
administrations from President Jimmy Carter to Bill Clinton.
He expressed concern about possible nuclear proliferation, saying
nonnuclear powers could start developing nuclear weapons. They could
follow in the footsteps of India and Pakistan, non-parties to the NPT
that conducted nuclear tests in 1998, Graham said.
Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
PO Box 652
Brunswick, ME 04011
(207) 729-0517
(207) 319-2017 (Cell Phone)
http://www.space4peace.org
globalnet@mindspring.com
*****************************************************************
9 [NYTr] IAEA Finds Secret Egyptian Nuclear Program
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 16:52:37 -0600 (CST)
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
[No wonder the US is after el Baradei's hide. The IAEA has found nuclear
weapons or programs to develop them or illegal technology transfers, in
Pakistan, Iran, and now Egypt. And we all know about Israel, a country that
won't let anyone send in inspectors... The only place they HAVEN'T found
such programs is... Iraq!]
AP via Yahoo - Jan 4, 2005
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=736&e=5&u=/ap/20050104/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nuclear_agency_egypt
By GEORGE JAHN
Associated Press Writer
VIENNA, Austria - The U.N. atomic watchdog agency has found evidence
of secret nuclear experiments in Egypt that could be used in weapons
programs, diplomats said Tuesday.
The diplomats told The Associated Press that most of the work was
carried out in the 1980s and 1990s but said the International Atomic
Energy Agency also was looking at evidence suggesting some work was
performed as recently as a year ago.
Egypt's government rejected claims it is or has been pursuing a
weapons program, saying its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
"A few months ago we denied these kinds of claims and we do so
again," Egyptian government spokesman Magdy Rady said. "Nothing
about our nuclear program is secret and there is nothing that is not
known to the IAEA."
But one of the diplomats said the Egyptians "tried to produce
various components of uranium" without declaring it to the IAEA, as
they were bound to under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The
products included several pounds of uranium metal and uranium
tetrafluoride a precursor to uranium hexafluoride gas, the
diplomat said on condition of anonymity.
Uranium metal can be processed into plutonium, while uranium
hexafluoride can be enriched into weapons-grade uranium both for
use in the core of nuclear warheads.
The diplomat said the Vienna-based IAEA had not yet drawn a
conclusion about the scope and purpose of the experiments. But the
work appeared to have been sporadic, involved small amounts of
material and lacked a particular focus, the diplomat said.
That, he said, indicated that the work was not directly geared
toward creating a full-scale program to make nuclear weapons.
Egypt has denied in the past it is trying to develop a nuclear
weapons program.
The country appeared to turn away from the pursuit of such a program
decades ago. The Soviet Union and China reportedly rebuffed its
requests for nuclear arms in the 1960s, and by the 1970s, Egypt gave
up the idea of building a plutonium production reactor and
reprocessing plant.
Egypt runs small-scale nuclear programs for medical and research
purposes, and Rady said the IAEA is monitoring that program.
"Nothing about our nuclear program is secret and there is nothing
that is not known to the IAEA," he said. "We don't have a secret
program for energy. All our program is known."
Plans were floated as recently as 2002 to build the country's first
nuclear power reactor. But no construction date has been announced,
and the pro-government Al-Ahram Weekly reported late last year that
the plant site near the coastal town of Al-Dabaa might be sold to
make way for tourism development.
Although Egypt signed the Nonproliferation Treaty, it has become in
recent years one of the treaty's most vocal critics, mainly because
of concerns about Israel's undeclared nuclear arsenal and more
recent fears about Iran's nuclear agenda.
*
Search the NYTr Archives at:
http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
To subscribe or unsubscribe or change your settings via the web, visit:
http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
=================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012
http://www.blythe.org e-mail: nyt@blythe.org
=================================================================
*****************************************************************
10 IAEA Finds Egypt Secret Nuclear Program
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 00:54:49 -0500
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Nuclear-Agency-Egypt.html?oref=login
IAEA Finds Egypt Secret Nuclear Program
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: January 4, 2005
Filed at 6:57 p.m. ET
VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- The U.N. atomic watchdog
agency has found evidence of secret nuclear
experiments in Egypt that could be used in weapons
programs, diplomats said Tuesday.
The diplomats told The Associated Press that most
of the work was carried out in the 1980s and 1990s
but said the International Atomic Energy Agency
also was looking at evidence suggesting some work
was performed as recently as a year ago.
Advertisement
Egypt's government rejected claims it is or has
been pursuing a weapons program, saying its
nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
``A few months ago we denied these kinds of claims
and we do so again,'' Egyptian government
spokesman Magdy Rady said. ``Nothing about our
nuclear program is secret and there is nothing
that is not known to the IAEA.''
But one of the diplomats said the Egyptians
``tried to produce various components of uranium''
without declaring it to the IAEA, as they were
bound to under the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty. The products included several pounds of
uranium metal and uranium tetrafluoride -- a
precursor to uranium hexafluoride gas, the
diplomat said on condition of anonymity.
Uranium metal can be processed into plutonium,
while uranium hexafluoride can be enriched into
weapons-grade uranium -- both for use in the core
of nuclear warheads.
The diplomat said the Vienna-based IAEA had not
yet drawn a conclusion about the scope and purpose
of the experiments. But the work appeared to have
been sporadic, involved small amounts of material
and lacked a particular focus, the diplomat said.
That, he said, indicated that the work was not
directly geared toward creating a full-scale
program to make nuclear weapons.
The diplomat said that Egypt's program was not
``cohesive.''
``It's not like Iran, where there was a clear plan
to produce'' uranium hexafluoride, the gas that
turns into enriched uranium when spun in
centrifuges, he said.
He also warned against comparisons to South Korea,
which conducted larger-scale plutonium and uranium
experiments in 1982 and 2000 without reporting
them to the agency.
Iran, which the United States accuses of having
nuclear weapons ambitions, developed a
full-fledged uranium enrichment program over
nearly two decades of clandestine activity
revealed only in mid 2002. Iran says it plans to
enrich only to levels used to generate nuclear
fuel and not to weapons-grade uranium.
In Vienna, IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky said the
agency would not comment on the revelations about
Egypt.
Cairo has denied in the past it is trying to
develop a nuclear weapons program.
The country appeared to turn away from the pursuit
of such a program decades ago. The Soviet Union
and China reportedly rebuffed its requests for
nuclear arms in the 1960s, and by the 1970s, Egypt
gave up the idea of building a plutonium
production reactor and reprocessing plant.
``We've seen the reports and I don't think we have
anything to offer at this point except what we've
said all along, which is, we expect all nations to
cooperate with the International Atomic Energy
Agency,'' White House spokesman Scott McClellan
said. ``We're sure they will look into this matter
and I would just point out that Egypt is a
signatory to the nonproliferation treaty.''
Egypt runs small-scale nuclear programs for
medical and research purposes, and Rady said the
IAEA is monitoring that program.
``Nothing about our nuclear program is secret and
there is nothing that is not known to the IAEA,''
he said. ``We don't have a secret program for
energy. All our program is known.''
Plans were floated as recently as 2002 to build
the country's first nuclear power reactor. But no
construction date has been announced, and the
pro-government Al-Ahram Weekly reported late last
year that the plant site near the coastal town of
Al-Dabaa might be sold to make way for tourism
development.
Although Egypt signed the nonproliferation treaty,
it has become in recent years one of its most
vocal critics, mainly because of concerns about
Israel's undeclared nuclear arsenal and more
recent fears about Iran's nuclear agenda.
Tuesday's revelations come two months after
diplomats told the AP that the IAEA had discovered
plutonium particles near an Egyptian nuclear
facility.
Back then, Egypt's foreign and energy ministers
rejected the reports -- but the diplomat again
verified them Tuesday, adding that agency has not
been able to determine if those traces were
evidence of a secret weapons program or simply the
byproduct of peaceful research.
The revelations reflect more efficient IAEA
policing of countries' nuclear program for
evidence of clandestine, weapons-linked
activities, including environmental sampling and
other high-tech methods.
Diplomats told the AP in October that Taiwan was
among countries snared by such technology, with
the agency suspecting it of conducting experiments
with plutonium up to the mid-1980s -- something
Taiwan denied.
------
On the Net:
International Atomic Energy Agency:
http://www.iaea.org
*****************************************************************
11 albawaba.com: Diplomats: Egypt made secret nuclear experiments
middle east news information::
04-01-2005 , 14:49
The U.N. atomic watchdog agency has found evidence of secret
nuclear experiments made by Egypt that could be used in weapons
programs, diplomats said Tuesday. [egypt flag]
They told The Associated Press that most of the work was carried
out in the 1980s and 1990s but added the International Atomic
Energy Agency also was looking at evidence suggesting some work
was performed as recently as in 2004.
Egypt's government rejected claims it has been pursuing a
weapons program, saying its nuclear program is for peaceful
purposes. "A few months ago we denied these kinds of claims and
we do so again," Egyptian government spokesman Magdy Rady said.
"Nothing about our nuclear program is secret and there is
nothing that is not known to the IAEA."
But one of the diplomats said the Egyptians "tried to produce
various components of uranium" without declaring it to the IAEA.
The work appeared to have been sporadic, involved small amounts
of material and lacked a particular focus, the diplomat said.
© 2005 Al Bawaba (www.albawaba.com)
© 2005 Al Bawaba (www.albawaba.com)
*****************************************************************
12 UPI: U.S.: Don't jump the gun on Egyptian nukes -
(United Press International)
January 04, 2005
By Anwar Iqbal
UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL
Washington, DC, Jan. 4 (UPI) -- The United States expressed
concern Tuesday about reports that Egypt has a secret uranium
research program and said it supports an investigation by the
International Atomic Energy Agency.
The U.N. nuclear agency reportedly claimed that Egypt might have
conducted secret nuclear experiments. Such experiments would have
violated international non-proliferation treaties.
"We've seen the press reports. We don't have anything definitive
or authoritative from the IAEA. I expect we'll be discussing
these press reports with them," State Department deputy spokesman
Adam Ereli told a briefing in Washington.
"We certainly believe it is imperative that member states comply
with their nuclear safeguards obligations," he said. "We support
the IAEA in its efforts to investigate and document compliance by
member states with their nuclear nonproliferation treaty
obligations and safeguards agreement."
Egypt is a member of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and
has an active safeguard agreement with the IAEA, the Vienna-based
U.N. monitoring agency.
According to U.S. media reports, the IAEA has found evidence of
secret nuclear experiments in Egypt that could be used in weapons
programs and most of the work was carried out in the 1980s and
1990s, but the IAEA was also looking at evidence suggesting some
work was performed as recently as a year ago.
The Israeli newspaper Jerusalem Post claimed Tuesday that
detained Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan might have
supplied nuclear technology to three Arab states -- Syria, Egypt
and Saudi Arabia.
Khan, who confessed to selling nuclear technology to Iran, Libya
and North Korea in February last year, has since been retired and
placed under house arrest.
Quoting Israeli intelligence sources, the newspaper said, "One
of those three Arab states now has the potential to achieve a
significant nuclear leap." The report did not name the country.
The report said Israel was aware of Khan's contacts with all
three countries, and knew that he had provided to one of them
expertise and material to manufacture nuclear bombs.
In an interview last week, former chief of Israel's Mossad
intelligence agency Ephraim Halevy told the Jerusalem Post he
believes Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt might have acquired
nuclear parts from Khan. But he also said that he did not have
access to latest information about Khan and his network.
Israel has its own extensive undeclared nuclear program. The
actual size and composition of Israel's nuclear stockpile is
uncertain, and is the subject of various estimates and reports.
It is widely reported that Israel had two bombs in 1967, and had
ordered them armed in Israel's first nuclear alert during the
Six-Day War.
By the late 1990s, the U.S. Intelligence Community estimated
that Israel possessed 75-130 weapons, based on production
estimates. The stockpile would certainly include warheads for
mobile Jericho-1 and Jericho-2 missiles, as well as bombs for
Israeli aircraft, and may also consist of other tactical nuclear
weapons of various types.
In an article published last week, New York Times reported that
U.S. intelligence agents said Khan visited 18 countries,
including Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, before he was placed
under house arrest.
Reports in the U.S. media about Egypt's nuclear program claimed
that Cairo had a laboratory-scale nuclear program, not directly
geared toward making nuclear weapons.
Other reports, however, said that Egypt abandoned its nuclear
ambitions decades ago after the former Soviet Union and China
reportedly rebuffed its requests for nuclear arms.
Asked if the U.S. administration had contacted Egypt to explain
these reports, State Department's deputy spokesman Ereli said:
"Not that I'm aware of."
He said he would not like to speculate about the impact of the
allegations on U.S. foreign policy, adding, "Let's see what the
facts are before talking about impact."
Asked if Washington had any concerns or information that
corroborates the reports about Egypt's nuclear ambitions, Ereli
said: "At this point, we would defer to the IAEA to present the
evidence that it has. I'm not in a position to talk about what
indications we may or may not have."
"In our experience, Egypt has been a responsible member of the
Non-Proliferation Treaty and has an active safeguards agreement
with the IAEA, and that's our view of the situation."
Ereli said it would be proper for the United States to discuss
the press reports with the IAEA, which is the source of these
reports, before going to Egypt.
"The question was about press reports that the IAEA has
discovered things, so let's see what the IAEA has. Let's discuss
it in the proper forum, which is the IAEA, and with the other
members of the IAEA, based on what the findings are, (and) decide
what the appropriate action is."
"That's the procedure that works," he added. "That's the
procedure that we'll follow."
Ereli said that making conclusions about Egypt's nuclear program
at this stage would be like "jumping the gun."
[UPI Perspectives]
*****************************************************************
13 Journal of Turkish Weekly: Nuke trader gave boost to ME states
[http://www.turkishweekly.net/
Days after former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy expressed fears
that Syria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia might have acquired some kind
of nuclear capability via an illicit weapons trafficking network
run by Abdul Qadeer Khan, the chief architect of Pakistan's
nuclear bomb, Israeli military sources have told The Jerusalem
Post that, thanks to Khan, one of those three Arab states now
has the potential to achieve a "significant nuclear leap."
The sources said that Israel is aware of Khan's contacts with
all three countries, but that he had provided to one of them
expertise and material to manufacture nuclear bombs. They would
not specify which country.
The sources also spoke of an assessment in the IDF that Arab
terrorist organizations are stepping up their efforts to obtain
weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear bombs.
They noted that there is now evidence of increased debate as to
whether Islamic law could allow for the deaths of Muslims as
part of the price when tens of millions of heathens are killed –
a debate whose very nature, the sources said, implies that
thought is being given to the notion of using weapons of mass
destruction.
In an interview with the Post last week, former Mossad chief and
national security adviser Halevy spoke of his concerns, which he
stressed did not derive from any recent access to classified
material, that Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt might have acquired
nuclear parts from Khan.
Khan had been running a black market in nuclear proliferation
across the Middle East. According to a New York Times article
last week, US intelligence and International Atomic Energy
Association agents are working to untangle Khan's network.
Investigators say he visited 18 countries, including Syria,
Saudi Arabia and Egypt, on what they believe were business
trips, either to buy materials like uranium ore or to sell
atomic goods, before he was arrested.
Khan also divulged centrifuge technology and provided Libya with
a design for nuclear bombs, the Times article said. But crucial
questions about the extent of Khan's proliferation activities
have remained unanswered because Pakistani President Pervez
Musharraf pardoned him and has refused to allow him to be
questioned directly by the CIA.
04 January 2005
By ARIEH O'SULLIVAN
2005-01-04 12:21:54
*****************************************************************
14 independent: Egypt carried out secret nuclear tests By Anne Penketh,
Diplomatic Editor
[http://www.independent.co.uk]
05 January 2005
Egyptian scientists have been caught out by the United Nations
nuclear watchdog for not declaring tests that could be used in
weapons programmes.
Inspectors with the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) detected trace material from small-scale
experiments as a result of environmental sampling in Egypt over
the past four months.
But diplomats in Vienna played down the discovery, saying that
the experiments did not involve uranium enrichment which would
have provided a clear indication that Egypt was working on a
nuclear weapons programme.
Asked whether the discovery was likely to cause international
alarm, as did the recent concealment of South Korean tests, the
diplomat replied: "It's much less than the South Korean model
and not so focused."
The Egyptians "tried to produce various components of uranium"
without declaring it to the IAEA, as they were bound to under
the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. South Korea, however,
provoked serious concern at the IAEA that it was actively
engaged in a weapons programme by failing to report uranium
enrichment.
Egypt signed the non-proliferation treaty in 1968 but delayed
ratification for 13 years, apparently after discovering that
Israel had embarked on a nuclear weapons programme. It could be
that some of the samples found by the IAEA inspectors may be
linked to work dating back two decades.
In Cairo, a government spokesman, Magdy Rady, said Egypt had
only a peaceful nuclear programme. "We don't have a secret
programme for energy," he said. "All our programme is known."
©2005 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd. All rights reserved
*****************************************************************
15 Las Vegas SUN: IAEA Finds Egypt Secret Nuclear Program
By GEORGE JAHN ASSOCIATED PRESS
VIENNA, Austria (AP) - The U.N. atomic watchdog agency has found
evidence of secret nuclear experiments in Egypt that could be
used in weapons programs, diplomats said Tuesday.
The diplomats told The Associated Press that most of the work
was carried out in the 1980s and 1990s but said the
International Atomic Energy Agency also was looking at evidence
suggesting some work was performed as recently as a year ago.
Egypt's government rejected claims it is or has been pursuing a
weapons program, saying its nuclear program is for peaceful
purposes.
"A few months ago we denied these kinds of claims and we do so
again," Egyptian government spokesman Magdy Rady said. "Nothing
about our nuclear program is secret and there is nothing that is
not known to the IAEA."
But one of the diplomats said the Egyptians "tried to produce
various components of uranium" without declaring it to the IAEA,
as they were bound to under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
The products included several pounds of uranium metal and
uranium tetrafluoride - a precursor to uranium hexafluoride gas,
the diplomat said on condition of anonymity.
Uranium metal can be processed into plutonium, while uranium
hexafluoride can be enriched into weapons-grade uranium - both
for use in the core of nuclear warheads.
The diplomat said the Vienna-based IAEA had not yet drawn a
conclusion about the scope and purpose of the experiments. But
the work appeared to have been sporadic, involved small amounts
of material and lacked a particular focus, the diplomat said.
That, he said, indicated that the work was not directly geared
toward creating a full-scale program to make nuclear weapons.
Egypt has denied in the past it is trying to develop a nuclear
weapons program.
The country appeared to turn away from the pursuit of such a
program decades ago. The Soviet Union and China reportedly
rebuffed its requests for nuclear arms in the 1960s, and by the
1970s, Egypt gave up the idea of building a plutonium production
reactor and reprocessing plant.
Egypt runs small-scale nuclear programs for medical and research
purposes, and Rady said the IAEA is monitoring that program.
"Nothing about our nuclear program is secret and there is
nothing that is not known to the IAEA," he said. "We don't have
a secret program for energy. All our program is known."
Plans were floated as recently as 2002 to build the country's
first nuclear power reactor. But no construction date has been
announced, and the pro-government Al-Ahram Weekly reported late
last year that the plant site near the coastal town of Al-Dabaa
might be sold to make way for tourism development.
Although Egypt signed the Nonproliferation Treaty, it has become
in recent years one of the treaty's most vocal critics, mainly
because of concerns about Israel's undeclared nuclear arsenal
and more recent fears about Iran's nuclear agenda.
---
On the Net:
International Atomic Energy Agency: http://www.iaea.org
[http://www.iaea.org]
--
*****************************************************************
16 [NukeNet] Bergen Record on NJ Nuke Plants - profit over safety
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 14:46:29 -0800
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkzJmZnYmVsN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2NjM0NDQ3JnlyaXJ5N2Y3MTdmN3ZxZWVFRXl5Mg=
N.J. nuclear plants accused of valuing profit over safety
Sunday, January 2, 2005
By BOB IVRY
STAFF WRITER
There's trouble at PSEG's three Salem County nuclear reactors.
A pipe burst on Oct. 10 at the Hope Creek plant and sent radioactive steam
into a turbine room.
A wobbly shaft in one of Hope Creek's water recirculation pumps - a
15-foot-high behemoth with an 80,000-pound motor - vibrates so much that
one scientist counted 10 pieces of smaller reactor equipment damaged by
the excessive movement.
But the most confounding problem at Hope Creek and the two other Salem
reactors is not mechanical. It's what federal regulators call the lack of
a "safety-conscious work environment." They're investigating whether
workers may fail to report potential danger because they fear retaliation
by Public Service Enterprise Group management.
Christopher Bakken, president of PSEG Nuclear, acknowledges that the
safety culture at the three reactors has historically been "chilled."
"We're making fragile progress," Bakken told the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission at a Dec. 2 hearing. "We certainly are not here to tell you
everything is fixed."
These have not been the best of times for New Jersey's nuclear power
installations.
At the single-reactor Oyster Creek Generating Station in Ocean County, a
battle is brewing over the renewal of the plant's operating license.
Exelon Corp., the plant's owner, will apply for the 20-year renewal of its
license next summer.
Opponents who worry about such issues as the plant's age - it came online
in 1969, making it the country's oldest - include an unprecedented number
of government officials. The state's environmental commissioner wants it
shut down and three local congressmen are among those who've expressed
opposition.
But it's at Hope Creek and Salem I and II in New Jersey's far southwestern
corner that critics say nuclear safety and the corporate bottom line are
on a collision course.
When Exelon takes over operation of the three reactors on Jan. 17 as part
of its merger agreement with PSEG, the $15 billion-a-year corporation will
have to make good on its reputation of fixing up nuclear plants. Critics
charge that PSEG's management team perpetuates the chilled work
environment by putting profits above safety.
Hope Creek, which provides enough electricity for 1 million homes and
brings in as much as $1 million of revenue a day, is currently shut down
for refueling and maintenance. In a controversial move, PSEG plans to
restart the 1,049-megawatt reactor without replacing the wobbly shaft in
the recirculation pump.
Concerns about the plant's safety prompted the NRC, the federal agency
that oversees the country's 103 commercial reactors, to schedule two
hearings to discuss the restart of Hope Creek. The second will be
Wednesday.
PSEG, citing a study it commissioned by an independent engineering firm,
Sargent & Lundy, said the damaged pump shaft can operate safely until it
can be replaced at the plant's next scheduled shutdown in the summer of
2006. As an added safeguard, PSEG said it installed vibration detection
monitors that sound an alarm if shaking reaches dangerous levels.
"If we see something unexpected, we'll go in and make the fix," said PSEG
spokesman Skip Sindoni.
If the pump bursts, it could flood the reactor building with radioactive
water, an accident that Sindoni said was highly unlikely.
The situation worries an array of scientists and government officials.
Last week, Bradley Campbell, commissioner of the state Department of
Environmental Protection, wrote the NRC, saying the reactor shouldn't be
restarted until the equipment is fixed.
"Engineers on the scene say this pump rattles like a freight train, the
seals are breaking in ways inconsistent with normal operation, and these
issues have not been balanced by any countervailing evidence by PSEG,"
Campbell said in an interview.
The DEP has no regulatory power over the reactors. Only the NRC can force
PSEG to fix the shaft. Campbell added that he regards the NRC's decision
on Hope Creek as telltale - both for PSEG and its federal overseer.
"I think the handling of this issue is critically important for public
confidence as regards both the safety of the plant and the adequacy of NRC
oversight," Campbell said.
Campbell credits the NRC for tackling the issue of the plant's safety
culture by acknowledging the problem. But other critics, including Dr.
Nancy Kymn Harvin, said the agency needs to go further.
"It still appears that PSEG does the right thing only when there's
significant external pressure," Harvin said. "The NRC's credibility is on
the line. Is the NRC true to its safety-first mission? Or is it a rubber
stamp for the nuclear industry, as many people say it is?"
Harvin was in charge of organizational development at Hope Creek and Salem
I and II before she was fired in March 2003, she said, for demanding
action on employee safety concerns.
Harvin said a PSEG executive confided in her in early 2003 about the
pressure Hope Creek employees were under to restart the reactor after it
had been shut down to fix a broken valve.
"If the NRC knew what we were doing, they'd take our keys away," Harvin
claims the executive told her.
Harvin said when she relayed the executive's statements to Harry Keiser,
PSEG Nuclear's president at the time, he dismissed the concerns and said
that any time employees felt like shirking they "put up the safety flag."
Harvin was fired soon after. She took her allegations - and tape
recordings of her conversations about safety with Keiser - to the NRC,
which is investigating.
Sindoni, the PSEG spokesman, insisted that Harvin was let go "as part of a
larger reorganization" that eliminated her position. Citing ongoing
litigation - Harvin is suing PSEG under New Jersey's whistle-blower
protection law - Sindoni declined to comment further.
PSEG's failure to respond to worker concerns is responsible for Hope
Creek's current predicament, Harvin said. An operator wrote an internal
memo in April, she said, warning of the possible rupture of a faulty pipe.
No action was taken, she said, and six months later, on Oct. 10, the pipe
ruptured and the reactor had to be shut down.
What happened at Hope Creek in the days that followed was the subject of a
Nov. 29 letter written to the NRC by David Lochbaum, a nuclear safety
engineer with the watchdog group Union of Concerned Scientists, who cited
sources inside the plant.
Six days after the emergency shutdown, Lochbaum wrote, repairs on the
broken pipe were nearing completion. PSEG wanted to restart the reactor on
Oct. 19, to get in 10 days of operation before a planned outage; the
company had scheduled a shutdown of the plant for Oct. 29 for routine
refueling and maintenance, a company official confirmed.
But on Oct. 16, when Michael Brothers, PSEG vice president for site
operations, visited the Hope Creek control room to inform operators of the
planned restart, "he encountered something close to mutiny," Lochbaum
wrote. The operators told Brothers that it was their "strong and unified
convictions" that the plant was unsafe to operate, according to Lochbaum.
Lochbaum said Brothers relayed the concerns to Bakken, the head of PSEG
Nuclear, and they quickly determined that without operator confidence,
restart plans had to be canceled.
Through a spokesman, Brothers disputed Lochbaum's version of his
interaction with reactor staff. "I thought the exchange was cordial and
professional and, in recent conversations, I've got similar feedback from
the operators involved," Brothers' statement said.
Sindoni added that the plant's top managers met the weekend of Oct. 16-17
and decided it would be best to keep the plant offline.
"That decision was made over the weekend, after they got a handle on what
needed to be done besides the repair of the pipe," Sindoni said.
Refueling and maintenance outages at Hope Creek typically last 30 days,
cost $25 million and use 110,000 employee-hours, Sindoni said. During the
85 days this reactor has been offline, PSEG has spent $70 million and used
330,000 employee-hours to upgrade equipment, augment its safety systems
and train staff, Sindoni said.
"We would not consider restarting Hope Creek if it was not safe to do so,"
Sindoni said.
E-mail: ivry@northjersey.com
6634447
--
Coalition for Peace and Justice
UNPLUG Salem Campaign; 321 Barr Ave, Linwood
NJ 08221; 609-601-8583; cell 609-742-0982
ncohen12@comcast.net; www.unplugsalem.org
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.7 - Release Date: 12/30/04
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
17 [NukeNet] AC Press Editorial - Fix The Pump!
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 14:46:49 -0800
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
January 03, 2005
Fix the pump first
Nuclear power plants pose a dilemma for us. The doom-and-gloom approach of
nuclear power's staunchest critics seems overwrought. Call it the "China
Syndrome" syndrome. But we like electricity a whole lot - and it has to
come from somewhere.
Then again, the nuclear-power industry does not exactly inspire total
confidence either. There are simply too many incidents, too many safety
lapses, for an industry that has the ability, should a major problem
occur, to kill and sicken lots of people. No large enterprise can have a
perfect safety record and make zero mistakes. However, you want your
nuclear power plants to come pretty darn close.
But Bradley Campbell has made this one easy.
The N.J. Department of Environmental Protection has no regulatory
authority over nuclear power plants, but Campbell, the DEP commissioner,
has sent a letter to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission saying that
the idle Hope Creek nuclear reactor should not be restarted until crucial
repairs are made.
Campbell's letter is highly unusual. State officials are usually more than
happy to stay out of any controversy that doesn't officially involve them.
But Campbell spoke up, and that means something. The feds should listen to
him.
At issue is a damaged cooling pump at the Salem County plant, one of three
at the site owned by Public Service Enterprise Group. The pump's shaft is
apparently bowed and vibrates at certain speeds.
Nuclear power critics say the vibrations could cause pipes to crack and,
in a worst-case scenario, lead to a meltdown. PSEG says the plant, which
was shut down in October after a steam leak, can operate safely with the
damaged pump. PSEG wants to do the repairs, an $8 million job, during the
reactor's next scheduled shutdown in 2006.
Clearly, this is a technical issue well beyond our level of expertise. But
you know what? If the head of the DEP says, to quote his letter to the
NRC, "We believe that the damaged pump shaft should be replaced before
Hope Creek can restart," that's good enough for us.
From a layman's perspective, the critics' scenario seems plausible enough.
Certainly, vibration can cause pipes to fail. This doesn't seem like
maintenance that should be deferred - not at a nuclear reactor.
A whistleblower has already accused PSEG of ignoring safety concerns and
deferring needed maintenance at the site. Add it all up, and there's
little doubt the prudent step is to fix the pump before restarting the
reactor.
--
Coalition for Peace and Justice
UNPLUG Salem Campaign; 321 Barr Ave, Linwood
NJ 08221; 609-601-8583; cell 609-742-0982
ncohen12@comcast.net; www.unplugsalem.org
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.7 - Release Date: 12/30/04
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
18 [NukeNet] NRC MTG WITH PSEG POSTPONED TO 1/12
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 14:47:03 -0800
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
Got a call from Scott Barber, NRC. He said that NRC was postponing the
meeting due to
"new technical info" provided by PSEG. A media source said that the reason
for the delay was that NRC had agreed to allow PSEG to not fix the B pumpm
for 18 months, but that PSEG and NRC were "negotiating" over certain
safety measures to be taken by PSEG.
Norm
--
Coalition for Peace and Justice
UNPLUG Salem Campaign; 321 Barr Ave, Linwood
NJ 08221; 609-601-8583; cell 609-742-0982
ncohen12@comcast.net; www.unplugsalem.org
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.7 - Release Date: 12/30/04
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
19 Latest/Tsunami Strike at Kalpakkam Nuclear Complex, India
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 14:42:11 -0800
Indias Kalpakkam nuclear complex is reported to have been partially flooded
by the December 26, 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. One unit had been closed
earlier for repairs. A second unit was shut down during the natural disaster.
The Kalpakkam nuclear complex includes two (170 & 220 MWe) heavy water
power reactors (MAPS 1 & MAPS 2) used for providing electricity to the grid
and to a desalinization plant. The complex is used as a tritium extraction
facility for Indias nuclear weapons program. Additionally, the complex
includes the operation of the Kalpakkam Reprocessing Plant (KARP) about 50
Km from Chennai.
Though it was initially reported that there were no causalities at the
nuclear complex, the latest attached news account notes that the flood
waters entered a residential area in the high security campusof the nuclear
power station site where 61 persons were killed.
At present, there are no reports of flood waters impacting any on-site
nuclear waste storage facilities at the complex.
Paul Gunter, Director
Reactor Watchdog Project
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
1424 16th Street NW Suite 404
Washington, DC 20036
Nuclear plant reopened in Tamil Nadu
Source: IANS.
Chennai, Jan 3: A nuclear power plant at Kalpakkam near here, shut down
following last week's tsunami, was reopened Sunday, officials said.
MAPS II, the second nuclear plant at Kalpakkam, about 75 km from here, is a
250MW unit built in 1985. It was shut down early Dec 26 as a precaution
after the tsunami battered the Tamil Nadu coast, officials of the Nuclear
Power Corporation of India said.
The turbulent seawaters entered residential quarters at the Kalpakkam
high-security campus and washed away at least 60 people, among them design
engineer A Selvaraj.
The waters also destroyed two churches and put at risk as many as 500 houses.
Advertisement
image0018.gif
image0061.gif
image0071.gif
Simplify your life!
Simplify your life with the MS Office product suite
..................
Try Instant Messaging!
MSN Web Messenger lets you chat instantly with any e-mail ID!
..................
Microsoft AIM contest!
Ready to take on the Amazing minds of the country?
image0081.gif
The death in fishing hamlets on the Kalpakkkam coast exceeds 200.
Meanwhile, S. Krishnamurthy took over Friday as station director of Madras
Atomic Power Station (MAPS) at Kalpakkam, replacing T.S. Rajendran, who has
retired.
Krishnamurthy was the chief superintendent at MAPS for the past two years.
Attachment Converted: image00181.gif: 00000001,1985f4a5,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: image00611.gif: 00000001,1985f4a6,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: image0071.gif: 00000001,1985f4a7,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: image0081.gif: 00000001,1985f4a8,00000000,00000000
*****************************************************************
20 UFO Sightings Near Iranian Nuke Plants
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 02:33:01 -0600 (CST)
IRAN, RUSSIA TO STUDY UFOS
SCIENTIFIC PROBE AMID RASH OF SIGHTINGS IN EASTERN HEMISPHERE
WorldNetDaily.com
December 30, 2004
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42162
With a rash of recent sightings of unidentified flying objects in the
Eastern Hemisphere, Russia and Iran have agreed to jointly study the UFO
phenomenon.
According to the Islamic Republic News Agency, the two nations are stressing
"expansion of bilateral cooperation particularly in space research and
construction of satellites."
In addition to the scientific look at UFOs, Russia and Iran are finalizing
agreement for the construction of the Zohreh satellite for Iran, which has
been on the drawing board for years but has been hampered by bureaucratic
obstacles.
News of the UFO study comes as skywatching mania strikes Iran.
This week, the Associated Press reported Tehran's air force was ordered to
shoot down any unknown or suspicious flying objects in its airspace amid
state-media reports of sightings of flying objects near Iran's nuclear
installations.
"Flights of unknown objects in the country's airspace have increased in
recent weeks... [they] have been seen over Bushehr and Isfahan provinces,"
the Resalat daily reported. Nuclear facilities are located in both
provinces.
"We have arranged plans to defend nuclear facilities from any threat," air
force General Karim Ghavami told the paper. "Iran's air force is watchful
and prepared to carry out its responsibilities."
Resalat also reported "shining objects" in the sky near Natanz, where Iran's
uranium-enrichment plant is situated. One of those objects is said to have
exploded, prompting "panic in the region."
As WorldNetDaily previously reported, Iran has been struck by UFO fever all
year long, with dozens of sightings of strange objects.
In April, state-run television broadcast a sparkling white disc flying over
Tehran.
People were reported rushing out into the streets in eight towns to watch a
bright "extraterrestrial light dipping in and out of the clouds."
The IRNA also reported colorful objects seen beaming out green, red, blue
and purple rays over the northern cities of Tabriz and Ardebil and in the
Caspian Sea province of Golestan.
In addition to Iran, a number of UFOs -- some possibly meteors -- have been
spotted by citizens of Indonesia, China and Australia.
In May, the Mexican air force released video footage of 11 unidentified
flying objects that were only visible via an infrared camera.
The objects reportedly flew around a military surveillance plane.
Jamie Maussan, a journalists and UFO enthusiast, told reporters the objects
seemed "intelligent" because at one point they changed direction and
surrounded the plane that was chasing them.
"They were invisible to the eye but they were there, there is no doubt about
it. They had mass, they had energy and they were moving about," Maussan said
after showing a 15-minute video.
"We are not alone! This is so weird," one of the pilots can be heard
yelling, Reuters reported. The plane's crew had just switched on the
infrared camera after first picking up the objects by radar.
*****************************************************************
21 Tsunamis & Nuclear Power Plants
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 02:18:50 -0600 (CST)
From: "Russell D. Hoffman"
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004
Subject: Arthur C. Clark in Sri Lanka; Joel Hirch;
Oscar Shirani; Seabrook; The ABCs of XYZ+1; Humboldt
County; TRITIUM
December 30th, 2004
Dear Readers,
Questioning whether a nuclear power plant would
survive a tsunami or any large natural disaster is a
game of inches. A tornado touched down only about 50
miles from San Onofre Nuclear Waste Generating Station
yesterday. California isn't "tornado alley" but it
happened!
When they say, for example, that a nuclear power plant
can be protected from X height tsunami wave or Y
magnitude earthquake or Z size tornado, it only means
the facility CANNOT be protected from X, Y, or Z plus
one.
There is no reason to play this game. The plants are
vulnerable -- not to admit it denies the obvious. Not
to do anything about it is criminal negligence. It's
time to shut these nuclear waste-makers down. There
are safe energy solutions.
Below are some of the recent emails I have received
about nuclear issues. Our thanks to everyone who
wrote (and to Carol Rosin who forwarded the
correspondence with her long-time friend Dr. Clark
(who lives in Sri Lanka)). Also, thanks to Truthout
and Counterpunch who both published my statement on
tsunamis and nuclear power plants yesterday, to the NC
Times for publishing a letter and quoting me in their
page 1 article today, to Carolyn Crane, KVMR News
Reporter/Producer, who interviewed this author minutes
ago for a news report this evening, and to Mark Elsis,
for the invitation to appear on Earth News Hour III
with Meria Heller and Mark R. Elsis in January.
Sincerely,
Russell Hoffman
Concerned Citizen
Carlsbad, CA
-------------------------------------------------------
Included below:
1) Joel Hirsh; Committee to Bridge the Gap
2) Are evacuations occurring near the Kalpakkam
Nuclear Power Plant in India, and if so, why?
3) Tsunamis and nuclear aircraft carriers --request
for calculation
4) Are the Nukes in Japan Safe? (not a chance!)
5) Seabrook Nuclear Plant near possible Tsunami
deposits:
6) Letter from A. C. Clark in Sri Lanka to Carol
Rosin
7) Richter Scale equivalent magnitudes (from Mark
Elsis)
8) An answer to Richard Warnock, SONWGS employee
regarding the dangers of TRITIUM
9) Oscar Shirani on Dry Casks -- they only LOOK safe
(if that!)
10) The Humboldt nuclear plant was built on an active
fault line
11) How thick and tall is the sea wall at San Onofre?
12) Morally bankrupt logic by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (by Arthur Doucette)
13) speaking of the devil...
14) Nuclear power -- request for calculation
15) Authorship notes for this newsletter
==================================
1) Joel Hirsh; Committee to Bridge the Gap:
==================================
From: j.hirsch@att.net
To: rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com
Subject: San Onofre - Beamhenge - We Need Your Help
Mr. Hoffman,
I understand that you have been active and concerned
about the safety of San Onofre in the past (e.g. the
articles you wrote). You and your neighbors may not
know it, but there is a window of opportunity to, for
the first time positively, affect safety at San Onofre
and the other 103 or so other nuclear plants...
For the first time, the NRC HAS OPENED UP A PETITION
which proposes to increase various security measures
at nuclear facilities. One of the proposals is the
immediate deployment of Beamhenge shields. Public
comments will be closed as of January 24, 2005.
All you have to do is go to www.nrc.gov
. On the right you will see blue
bars for Rulemaking Petitions. Click on the bar. Then
on the right, you will see at the bottom "Active"...
click on that. Then scroll down to Committee to
Bridge the Gap... and then click on submit a public
comment.
You can see a summary of the full petition in the
Federal Register.
Anything you can do would be greatly appreciated. --
Joel Hirsch
====================================================
2) Are evacuations occurring near the Kalpakkam
Nuclear Power Plant in India, and if so, why?
====================================================
From: bismillah irrahman irrahim
Subject: Re: Question from Phuket: Is the Kalpakkam
nuclear plant in India safe? (Please send info!)
To: "Russell D. Hoffman"
I noticed that India today declared a tsunami alert
and evacuated the region without any special
indications that another tsunami is coming. I'm
wondering if something is wrong at the nuke facility.
====================================================
3) Tsunamis and nuclear aircraft carriers --request
for calculation:
====================================================
Subject: Tsunamis and nuclear power
From: remfish@xs4all.nl
To: rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com
HI
i just read your article in counter punch and i
wonder if you have
considered the quantity of fissile material The US
government has sitting
in a volcano caldera a few hundred kilometers from
the centre of the asia
quake.
clearly the US naval base Diego Garcia survived,
because we are all still
alive too. However sitting in a volcano caldera,
close to a recent quake,
would give me the heebees, keeping a military
stockpile of fuel rods and
weapons in it would feel like asking for trouble.
on average there are two nuclear powered aircraft
carriers and a couple of
trident subs hanging about the base between patrols
and that particular
volcano has a habit of going in a one-er hence the
big deep lagoon.
could you estimate how far away a nuclear powered
aircraft carrier would
come down if its dock and all the water round it blew
a kilometer and a
half into the air?
luvs monkey
====================================================
4) Are the Nukes in Japan Safe? (not a chance!):
====================================================
From: "Robert McKinney"
Subject: chelsea@ttv.ne.jp
Dear [Russell], I live in Japan (twenty year
resident) and fear that the Japanese government has
taken the same approach to nuclear power plants that
California has. We had a very bad scare a few years
back when a major plant in Ibaraki prefecture, some 40
miles north of Tokyo) had a radiation spill caused by
some very inept behavior on the part of three foolish
technicians.
They actually caused the spill or radiation leak that
contaminated the entire region for a 6 mile radius.
Idiots. and the government officials didn't raise the
evacuation alarm for 24 hours while attempting to do
damage control, both nuclear and public relations. Per
capita Japan has the greatest number of nuclear power
plants in the world! And not a very good safety
record. In Kobe the 'earthquake proof' elevated
expressway collapsed in the wake of the l995 quake
that rocked that city. And recently the disaster that
Japan said would never happen, happened. A 'bullet
train' went off the tracks during a terrible typhoon
and earthquake. The stupid arrogance of engineers does
frighten me sometimes. They remind me of the fellow in
the l930's film 'King Kong' who assured his audience
that the great Ape was securely chained and could
never get free or cause any damage.
Everyone was perfectly safe. Ha, ha, ha. The clock is
ticking in Japan and sooner or later one of their
nuclear power plants could experience a Chernobyl type
melt down. Major Earthquake gonna hit Tokyo one of
these days. God forbid if there's a nuclear meltdown.
====================================================
5) Seabrook Nuclear Plant near possible Tsunami
deposits:
====================================================
From: "Peter Crowley"
To:
Subject: Seabrook Nuclear Plant near possible Tsunami
deposits
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 21:07:38 -0500
Mr. Hoffman, I thought you might be interested in the
paper below, which discusses possible tsunami deposits
near the Seabrook plant.
Peter Crowley
http://erp-web.er.usgs.gov/reports/annsum/vol43/cu/G0163.htm
====================================================
6) Letter from A. C. Clark in Sri Lanka to Carol
Rosin:
====================================================
Hi Russell Thought you might be interested in this
note....hope all is well with you! Carol Dear Carol,
Thank you for your concern about my safety in the
wake of last Sunday?s devastating tidal wave.
I am enormously relieved that my family and household
have escaped the ravages of the sea that suddenly
invaded most parts of coastal Sri Lanka, leaving a
trail of destruction.
But many others were not so fortunate. For over two
million Sri Lankans and a large number of foreign
tourists holidaying here, the day after Christmas
turned out to be a living nightmare reminiscent of The
Day After Tomorrow. My heart-felt sympathy goes out to
all those who lost family members or friends.
Among those who directly experienced the waves were
my staff based at our diving station in Hikkaduwa, and
my holiday bungalows in Kahawa and Thiranagama all
beachfront properties located in southern areas that
were badly hit. Our staff members are all safe, even
though some are badly shaken and relate harrowing
first hand accounts of what happened. Most of our
diving equipment and boats at Hikkaduwa were washed
away. We still don't know the full extent of damage --
it will take a while for us to take stock as accessing
these areas is still difficult.
This is indeed a disaster of unprecedented magnitude
for Sri Lanka, which lacks the resources and capacity
to cope with the aftermath. We are encouraging
concerned friends to contribute to the relief efforts
launched by various national and international
organisations. If you wish to join these efforts, I
can recommend two options.
- Contribute to a Sri Lanka disaster relief fund
launched by an internationally operating humanitarian
charity, such as Care or Oxfam.
- Alternatively, considering supporting Sarvodaya,
the largest development charity in Sri Lanka, which
has a 45-year track record in reaching out and helping
the poorest of the poor. Sarvodaya has mounted a well
organised, countrywide relief effort using their
countrywide network of offices and volunteers who work
in all parts of the country, well above ethnic and
other divisions. Their website, www.sarvodaya.lk
< http://www.sarvodaya.lk/
> , provides bank account details for financial
donations. They also welcome contributions in kind --
a list of urgently needed items is found at:
There is much to be done in both short and long terms
for Sri Lanka to raise its head from this blow from
the seas. Among other things, the country needs to
improve its technical and communications facilities so
that effective early warnings can help minimise losses
in future disasters.
Curiously enough, in my first book on Sri Lanka, I
had written about another tidal wave reaching the
Galle harbour (see Chapter 8 in The Reefs of
Taprobane, 1957). That happened in August 1883,
following the eruption of Krakatoa in roughly the same
part of the Indian Ocean.
Arthur Clarke
29 December 2004
Dr. Carol Rosin
President, Institute for Cooperation in Space
PO Box 288
Loja, Ecuador
rosin@west.net
www.peaceinspace.com
www.madretierra1.com
====================================
7) Richter Scale equivalent magnitudes (from Mark
Elsis):
====================================
From: "LOVEARTH NETWORK"
To: "Russell D. Hoffman"
Subject: Re: Statement by Russell Hoffman concerning
tsunamis and nuclear power plants
1000x smaller -- each 1.0 point you go up 32x more
energy is released.
Richter TNT for
Seismic Example
Magnitude Energy Yield
(approximate)
-1.5 6 ounces Breaking a rock on a
lab table
1.0 30 pounds Large Blast at a
Construction Site
1.5 320 pounds
2.0 1 ton Large Quarry or Mine
Blast
2.5 4.6 tons
3.0 29 tons
3.5 73 tons
4.0 1,000 tons Small Nuclear
Weapon
4.5 5,100 tons Average Tornado
(total energy)
5.0 32,000 tons
5.5 80,000 tons Little Skull Mtn.,
NV Quake, 1992
6.0 1 million tons Double Spring
Flat, NV Quake, 1994
6.5 5 million tons Northridge, CA
Quake, 1994
7.0 32 million tons Hyogo-Ken Nanbu,
Japan Quake, 1995; Largest Thermonuclear Weapon
7.5 160 million tons Landers, CA
Quake, 1992
8.0 1 billion tons San Francisco, CA
Quake, 1906
8.5 5 billion tons Anchorage, AK
Quake, 1964
9.0 32 billion tons Chilean Quake,
1960
10.0 1 trillion tons (San-Andreas type
fault circling Earth)
12.0 160 trillion tons (Fault Earth in
half through center, OR Earth's daily receipt of solar
energy)
http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/class/100/magnitude.html
============================
8) An answer to Richard Warnock, SONWGS employee
regarding the dangers of TRITIUM:
============================
Earlier this month, The North County Times published
an unwarranted attack on this author's credibility.
They did not publish the follow-up, which is shown
below, and probably won't, since today (Dec. 30th,
2004) they published one of my later tsunami letters,
and quoted this writer in their front-page coverage of
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's assertions that
San Onofre would be safe from a tsunami. I've posted
Warnock's original "Community Forum" online here with
the reponse and various related online links:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/onofre/2004/TritiumComments%2020041223.htm
Grateful assistance was provided by Marion Fulk,
Sally Devline, and Leuren Moret (mistakes, however,
are my own).
-- rdh
------------------------------------------------
Note: In the letter below, a "^" (caret) means
"raised to the power of."
December 23rd, 2004
To The Editor:
Richard Warnock, an employee of San Onofre Nuclear
Generating Station, said in your paper's Community
Forum (December 20th, 2004, pg. A-8: "Nuclear
reactor's radiation is trivial") that radiation is "a
rather weak carcinogen when compared with smoking and
many chemicals." However, mere milligrams of
Plutonium 239, for example, will virtually guarantee
lung cancer. Radiation also multiplies the hazardous
effects of other chemicals.
Radiation causes cancer, neuromuscular disfunction,
leukemia, cataracts, genomic instability, bystander
effect (cell-to-cell damage), and scores of other
health problems. Cardiovascular problems are another
previously overlooked (by "mainstream scientists")
health effect of radiation. A study of 53,698
employees at 52 US nuclear power facilities from 1979
to 1997 indicated an unexpectedly-high 248 deaths from
heart disease (New Scientist, 18 December 2004, page
18: "Radiation is bad for your heart").
The main topic of Warnock's response to my original
North County Times Op-Ed recommending the plant be
shuttered (December 12th, 2004, page E-1) was tritium.
Discovered in the 1930s, tritium has an extremely low
natural occurrence. It became widely available in the
1950s as a byproduct of nuclear reactors. Tritium use
has been declining in biological and medical science
because safer-to-use florescent molecules and
antibodies are now available.
Even a few responsible members of the health physics
community have questioned tritium's use in exit signs,
and alternatives are being developed. On 9-11,
hundreds of tritium exit signs were pulverized when
the Twin Towers collapsed. The dust was also toxic
with asbestos and other pollutants, as well as
radioactive so-called "depleted" uranium (and more
tritium) from the airplanes. Thousands of 9-11
emergency workers now suffer from lung problems. A
14-year-old boy had a temper tantrum and smashed ONE
tritium-laced exit sign at a child care center. The
hazardous waste cleanup cost taxpayers a quarter of a
million dollars.
San Onofre has probably released 50,000 to 100,000
Curies of tritium into the surrounding environment.
That would be like smashing tens of thousands of exit
signs.
Warnock claims that San Onofre's radioactive releases
quickly become "unmeasurable." What he means is they
become indistinguishable because of the variations in
levels of similar pollutants that are already out
there.
There are about 1 * 10^4 Curies in a gram of tritium.
1 curie is 3.7 * 10^10 decays per second, so that's
3.7 * 10^14 dps per gram. There are about 3.7 * 10^11
stars in the Milky Way -- a thousand times LESS than
the number of decays per second emanating from a
single gram of San Onofre's so-called "safe" tritium.
And just how much damage can a single one of those
370 trillion (370,000,000,000,000) decays each second
do if it occurs inside our bodies? Dr. Marion Fulk, a
retired Manhattan Project scientist, refers to tritium
as "wicked" because of its deceptive "low power"
ionizing radiation. Usually the entire 6 kilovolts
(average; maximum is about 18 kilovolts) of decay
energy is dissipated within a single cell because the
"mean free path" is only about 1 micrometer. A single
tritium decay can damage thousands of ligand bonds.
Normally, such bonds are made and broken in complex
and highly controlled processes which make the body
the marvel that it is. Such bond making-and-breaking
makes it possible, for example, to transmit a pain
signal from the toe to the brain. It is not random.
Tritium causes (along with all the problems listed
above) "cell suicide" (apoptosis). While you have
about 5 * 10^13 cells in your body altogether, you
don't have vast numbers of every type of cell. Your
heart's electrical impulse transmission system, for
instance, cannot afford a lot of cell suicides,
because there just aren't that many of those cells to
begin with.
Furthermore, there was a time when you were just one
cell. A single tritium decay could have wiped you
out! Fetuses are much more susceptible to radiation
damage than adults -- probably at least 1 * 10^3 times
more so.
Recent research suggests that the Biological Quality
Factor for tritium should be more than doubled (a
higher rating is considered more damaging). Instead,
the nuclear industry keeps trying to get a relaxation
of the drinking water standard, from 20,000 picoCuries
(20 billionths of a Curie) per liter to 60,000 pCi/l.
When tritium is ingested, about 10% will stay in the
body longer than 10 days, and some will stay for
years. All 7 * 10^9 humans are exposed to galaxies of
tritium atoms daily because of previous nuclear
industry and weapons releases.
We CAN chose renewable power to solve our electrical
energy needs. Offshore wind farms, for instance, do
not use any land space, they do not kill birds, and
they do not even need to be close enough to shore to
be seen.
Russell Hoffman
Concerned Citizen
Carlsbad, CA
==================================================
9) Oscar Shirani on Dry Casks -- they only LOOK safe
(if that!):
==================================================
From: Oscar Shirani
Subject: Re: From RADBULL: 26 [du-list] Feds Won't
Test Nuclear Waste Casks
To: "Russell D. Hoffman"
Russell,
Please issue an article in all the newspapers that if
the casks were manufactured and built according to the
codes of federal regulations and other applicable
standards, then NRC could have an argument to prove
that their analytical solutions are acceptable and
ignore to test the casks, BUT in my 2000 audit of
Holtec and US Tool and Die repeatedly proved that
those casks were not built in accordance with the
applicable design codes and had the proofs in my audit
reports that there were flaws in design, flaws in
welding, flaws in material, uncontrolled weld filler
material, inadequate trained workers, multiple
bypassing of Quality Control holdpoints and witness
points, welding at risk, bypassing the design changes,
bypassing the weld coupons, bypassing the Post Weld
Heat Treatment, etc.
All the above violations of the ASME, ANSI, and the
NRC codes of federal regulations is the reflection of
100% certainty that the structural integrity is not
maintained and the final casks that are already loaded
are not supported by any design codes. I will
challenge NRC in front of the national TV and
congressional hearing. Why NRC does not want to face
me to discuss these issues openly? Because NRC knows
that I am correct and I have made this argument at
many universities and [in the presence] of many
mechanical engineers around the world in many of my
conferences.
This is why NRC could not obtain the signature of
their own technical staff, Dr. Landsman after two
years of phony investigation of my issues. Dr.
Landsman still refused to accept the NRC's closure of
my issues. Dr. Landsman knew that NRC just performed
paper audits and investigation of my issues and knew
that those issues were massaged and falsified by
Exelon and Holtec. Department of Energy (DOE) is
pushing the NRC to ignore the cask issues that I
raised as the lead auditor of NUPIC (all utilities),
because they (NRC and DOE) know that the pools don't
have any more spaces and the Yucca Mountain would not
be ready for many more years. Even when the Yucca
Mountain gets ready, I am willing to prove to all the
engineers and scientists and more importantly to the
general average Joe in America that those casks are
faulty and should be dismantled immediately and as the
NRC's Dr. Landsman told the WTTW Channel 11 Chicago
news that those dry casks should be stopped from
production. Dr. Landsman read my audit report and even
though the audit report[s] were massaged and
falsified, but [he] had still many alarming issues
about the welding flaws, etc..
-- Oscar Shirani
=====================================================
10) The Humboldt nuclear plant was built on an active
fault line:
=====================================================
Subject: Your Counterpunch article
From: Sara Reed
To:
Dear Mr. Hoffman: I read your Counterpunch article
with great interest.
You pose the question "Why?" as to the continued
existence of our nuclear
power plants. Like you, I can't think of a single
good reason -- but I can
think of some old, outmoded ones. I am sure you are
well aware of the 1950s
thinking that I will outline below.
To my way of thinking, the push for nuclear power
plants was a ham-fisted
attempt to provide a "peaceful" use for atomic power
in order to make the
age of the atomic bomb more palatable to the American
people. The Mr. Hyde
of the bomb was now an ugly fact of life so we looked
for a Dr. Jekyll face
to put on it. Also, the US government had decided
that the production of
uranium, although now a matter of national security,
was to remain private
-- yet protected. So, naturally, private industry
uses for the stuff, such
as power plants, were sought.
Then the bottom fell out of the yellowcake market --
when, about 1980? The
US government did not support the domestic producers
of uranium as they had.
We import yellowcake now. The initial basis for the
rationale -- i.e.
giving a "necessary" and protected private industry
something positive and
useful to do --sort of disappeared.
It is extremely unfortunate but sometimes a disaster
needs to occur before
obvious risks are effectively addressed with dug-in,
vested interests .. I
was in Humboldt County, CA in the late 1970s. The
Redwood Alliance was very
active. The University's geology department
continually warned PG&E that
the Humboldt nuclear plant was built on an active
fault line. The
discussion had devolved to a "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is
so!" level of
discourse --- when a 6.9 or 7.0 quake occurred -- the
night before the day
Reagan was elected President as I recall.
Fortunately, there was very
little damage from that quake. But the plant was
finally decommissioned as
a result.
I hope your writing about the Indian Ocean tsunami
vis a vis the remaining
California nuclear plants will provide the same
result that it took an
actual quake to cause in Humboldt County. People who
have seen the pictures
of the destruction met out by Mother Nature can
mentally make the
connection. There are unacceptable risks involved in
the nuclear plants
with no upside advantage. The "clean" energy
provided by the plants in
question does not bring us one whit closer to
independence from fossil fuels
for our electricity (surely our dependence on fossil
fuels is the source of
the worst security risks our county faces now). But
power generated from
wind and movement of water -- as you described in
your article -- does.
Perhaps enlistment of the insurance industry in this
argument might be of
help in making it effective. After all, there is a
great deal of money at
risk -- as well people's health and property.
Thank you for your very stimulating article.
Sara Reed
[[[ Unfortunately, the insurance companies have
simply but exclusions to nuclear power catastrophes in
all their contracts, so they don't much care,
financially, what happens. But we all have a moral
stake in this, as well. -- rdh ]]]
====================================================
11) How thick and tall is the sea wall at San Onofre?
====================================================
From: "Bill Smirnow"
To: "Russell D. Hoffman"
Subject: Re: Statement by Russell Hoffman concerning
tsunamis and nuclear power plants
Hi Russell,
Do you know how thick the wall is and
what it is made of? How long is it? If a tsunami were
to hit along a front of 625 miles of the coast or that
matter 1000 miles does that automatically mean there
would be a release[s] of radiation or is there a way
of scramming them safely for an extended period of
time?
Good work below. Have you considered calling people
like Matt Wald of the NY Times? William Broad of the
NYTimes [who's possibly more receptive]?
-Bill
--------------------------------------------
[[[ Lighthouses have been knocked over and swept away
by tsunamis, and yet these cluckers think they've got
a nuke plant that will survive simply ANYTHING! The
sea wall at San Onofre is probably not more than 4 or
5 feet thick, perhaps only three, it's straight, not
curved against the wave front like it should be, and I
read in the local paper today that it's 30 feet high,
not 35 feet high as I had stated in my previous
letter. That's an extra five foot wall of water
coming through!
A tsunami would not "automatically" mean a release of
radiation, but a large one that inundates the facility
would mean there would almost certainly if not
"automatically" be a massive release, from the spent
fuel pool with a train car sitting in it, from the dry
casks knocked over, about, and open, or from the
reactor itself melting down due to loss of (the)
control (room), loss of backup systems, loss of
everything external to the dome, and who knows, maybe
loss of the dome, too! Nothing's certain in this
world, but that would certainly NOT be GOOD!
Note: WB may have received the email. MW would not
have received it directly.
-- rdh ]]]
==========================================
12) Morally bankrupt logic by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission:
==========================================
From: "Doucette, Arthur"
To: "'Russell D. Hoffman'"
Hi Russell,
I came across this recently,
http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/regulatory/rulemaking/risk-informed.html
"For assessing public safety and developing
regulations for nuclear reactors
and materials, the NRC traditionally used a
deterministic approach that
asked. "What can go wrong?" and "What are the
consequences?" Now, new
information for assessing risks also allows NRC to
ask "How likely is it
that something will go wrong?"
Seems to me much like how NASA rationalized Cassini.
Of course their whole rationalization was proven
false when they
miscalculated the weight of the Mars lander, their
very next orbital
maneuver after their Cassini fly by (Scare by?)
So now the NRC will use the fact that a catastrophic
failure is "not likely"
to occur to determine risk?
Probability analysis is great when playing the stock
market, planting crops
etc, but this is the same logic Ford used when
dealing with flaming Pintos.
They didn't recall them because the cost of the
recall was more then their
probability analysis showed they would pay out in
settlements to those who
got roasted.
This logic is just morally bankrupt.
Arthur
=====================
13) Speaking of the devil...
=====================
From: SUMMARIA@
Subject: speaking of the devil...
To: rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com
speaking of vulnerable nuclear plants, you may have
wished to mention (for readers unfamiliar with our
local geography) that PG&Gs Diablo plant is ALSO sited
right on the coast -- and atop an earthquake fault.
[ Note: The original version of the tsunami email
included a short RADBULL article about Kalpakkam. --
rdh ]
==================================
14) Nuclear power -- request for calculation:
==================================
At 08:10 PM 12/29/2004 -0600, "prcarlson"
wrote:
Dear [Russell],
Thanks for your article. I have an interesting
question for you. What is the comparative morbidity
and mortality and environmental impact of electric
generation technologies in the US over a long period
of time?? Include all aspects including manufacture,
installation, operation, maintenance, accidents,
decommissioning and the entire fuel cycle and
normalize it for an equivalent output of electricity
(i.e. what it would be if we were all renewable, all
coal, or all nuclear) over a 50 or 100 year period of
time. Thanks for your consideration.
Phil Carlson
Middleton, Wisconsin
To: "prcarlson"
Dear Mr. Carlson,
These sorts of calculations have been done over and
over by various scientists and other researchers over
the years. Nuclear always comes up short.
The excellent book Asleep at the Geiger Counter by
Sidney Goodman, P.E., M.S.M.E. (Copyright 2002, Blue
Dolphin Publishing, ISBN 1-57733-107-9) has a chapter
on the subject of comparative costs (chapter 10).
Also, in the 1970s, the late Buckminster Fuller wrote
a forward for a book which presented relevant
calculations. Fuller is considered responsible for
some of the first such detailed calculations ever done
globally on any subject (in the 1920s, on copper
reserves worldwide, for a mining corporation).
So, it's been done; you must have missed it (again
and again and again). The first question you need to
consider is that a meltdown which would kill hundreds
of thousands or even millions of people, and poison
everyone globally, would actually cost money. Or are
you insisting, even today, after 9-11, after
Davis-Besse, and after Sunday's tsunamis, that the
plants are invulnerable and meltdowns won't every
happen? You didn't mention this little bugaboo about
nukes in your letter. You mentioned "accidents" but
you seem to mean normal industrial accidents, from the
context. If your calculations ignore the costs of
meltdowns, your math will never be right, and when
included, they preclude any hope of a fair profit for
the nuke corporation.
Sincerely,
Russell Hoffman
Concerned Citizen
Carlsbad, CA
===============================
15) Authorship notes for this newsletter:
===============================
Russell Hoffman, a computer programmer, has written
extensively about nuclear power. His essays have been
translated into several different languages and
published in more than a dozen countries. Recently,
the 24 Dec. 2004 issue of Nuclear Monitor includes an
essay by Mr. Hoffman (each issue is published online
two months later):
http://www.nirs.org
Visit Hoffman's Shut San Onofre web site:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/onofre/index.htm
POIFU: ("Poison Fire USA") (Animated timeline of
atomic usage in the USA):
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/poifu/poifu.swf
Internet Glossary of Nuclear Terminology / "The Demon
Hot Atom":
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/hotwords/index.htm
List of every nuclear power plant in America, with
history, activist orgs, specs, etc.:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/nukelist.htm
List of ~350 books and videos about nuclear issues in
my collection (donations welcome!):
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/mybooks.htm
Learn about The Effects of Nuclear War here:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/tenw/nuke_war.htm
Subscribe to Hoffman's nuke-related (usually)
newsletter by writing to him:
"Russell D. Hoffman"
*************************************************
** THE ANIMATED SOFTWARE COMPANY
** Russell D. Hoffman, Owner and Chief Programmer
** P.O. Box 1936, Carlsbad CA 92018-1936
** (800) 551-2726
** (760) 720-7261
** Fax: (760) 720-7394
** Visit the world's most eclectic web site:
** http://www.animatedsoftware.com
*************************************************
IF YOU RECEIVED THIS EMAIL IN ERROR AND/OR DO NOT
WISH TO RECEIVE ANY MORE EMAILS FROM US FOR ANY
REASON, PLEASE CONTACT RUSSELL HOFFMAN AT:
rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com
*****************************************************************
22 UK The Times: Need to invest in nuclear power
January 04, 2005
From Mr Malcolm Turner
Sir, The romance of wave, wind, tide and sun power is just that.
The application of such technologies is not only proving
inadequate but is also disfiguring what remains of our
countryside. The Government continues to procrastinate over the
energy crisis. Soon we will have no oil; this signals higher
costs, greater jeopardy for supplies and being forced to
ameliorate foreign policy to accommodate our energy suppliers.
Nuclear power, despite decommissioning costs, is still the most
viable form of energy and the most controllable and reliable.
This indigenous source allows Britain freedom of policy and the
containment of visual dysfunction. Various recent developments
allow for the easy and safe storage and reuse of nuclear waste,
and the processes will undoubtedly get better.
A commitment to build nuclear plant now would see assured
supplies of fuel accruing in the early part of the next decade.
Any decision against nuclear energy suggests insecurity of
supply, unpredictable pricing, and a gross incompatibility
between current UK economic predictions and the reality of our
projected energy requirements.
How ironic that Britain currently imports electricity from the
French grid, which is substantially nuclear. Nuclear energy is a
worldwide reality.
Yours faithfully, MALCOLM TURNER, 27 Fields Road, Alsager,
Cheshire ST7 2NA. January 1.
Copyright The Times - timesonline.co.uk
*****************************************************************
23 NRC: News Release - Region I - 2004-058 - NRC to Discuss Results
of Special Inspection at Hope Creek Plant
Home > Electronic Reading Room > Document Collections > News
Releases > 2005 > I-05-001
[NRC Seal]
NRC NEWS U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs, Region I 475 Allendale Road, King of
Prussia, Pa. 19406 www.nrc.gov
No. I-05-001 January 3, 2005 CONTACT:
Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331
E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov [opa1@nrc.gov]
NRC RESCHEDULES MEETING ON HOPE CREEK NUCLEAR PLANT TO JAN. 12
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has rescheduled a public
meeting at which key issues involving the Hope Creek nuclear
power plant are to be discussed. The reason for the postponement
is to allow adequate time for the NRC staff to complete its
review of issues associated with one of the reactor
recirculation pumps at the Hancocks Bridge (Salem County), N.J.,
facility.
Previously scheduled for Wednesday, Jan. 5, the meeting between
NRC staff and representatives of Public Service Electric and Gas
(PSEG), the operator of the plant, will now take place on
Wednesday, Jan. 12. The location will remain unchanged: The
Holiday Inn Select Bridgeport, located off Exit 10 of Interstate
295 in Swedesboro, N.J. Before the session is adjourned, NRC
staff will accept questions and comments from the public.
Another topic of discussion at the meeting will be the results
of an NRC special inspection conducted at the plant in response
to a steam line failure and shutdown with complications that
occurred there on Oct. 10. In addition, issues involving the
exhaust piping for the high-pressure coolant injection pump will
be discussed.
Prior to the meeting, the NRC staff expects to release the
results of its analysis of the issues involving the B
recirculation pump as well as the preliminary results of the
special inspection.
The meeting will take place prior to the plants return to
service from its current refueling and maintenance outage.
Background information regarding the Hope Creek plant can be
found on a portion of the NRCs web site devoted to that plant
and the adjacent Salem reactors. The web address is:
www.nrc.gov/reactors/plant-specific-items/hope-creek-salem-issues
.html. Specific information on the technical issues involving
the Hope Creek B recirculation pump can be found in the NRCs
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System, or ADAMS,
under Accession Numbers ML043480164 and ML043510279. ADAMS can
be accessed at www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Help in using
ADAMS is available from the NRC Public Document Room at
1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737.
*****************************************************************
24 DECATUR DAILY: TVA deserves credit for expanding wind farm
www.decaturdaily.com
MONDAY, JANUARY 3, 2005
EDITORIAL
While the Tennessee Valley Authority is making progress on the
restart of Unit 1 at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, another TVA
sector is quietly going about it's business of putting out cheap
power.
Quietly may not be the proper word for the results, as the
windmills producing the power make a "whooshing" sound as they
go about generating energy.
Although the units are expensive, the energy they produce comes
from the wind at no cost, unlike goal, gas or even nuclear power
production. It ranks right down there with hydroelectric power
as far as costs go.
It's also worthwhile pointing out that the $30 million project
was funded with money from private sources, not adding to the
money TVA currently owes.
TVA officials should take a bow for expanding the Oliver
Springs, Tenn., wind farm to 18 windmills. What started as an
eco-experiment has proved to be a good way to produce clean
power. The 18 units can now produce enough power to provide
electricity to 3,000 homes.
When it first opened atop Buffalo Mountain with three turbines
in 2001, the South's first commercial wind farm produced a mere
2 megawatts of electricity, enough for just 360 homes.
The expansion is expected to help erase a supply deficit in
TVA's Green Power Switch renewable energy program, leaving a
surplus that could be sold to other utilities.
It's worth going to TVA's Website to read about this move to
what may be a big part of our future. Check out www.tva.gov.
Copyright 1999 THE DECATUR DAILY. All rights reserved.
AP contributed to this report. -->
Copyright 1999 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This
THE DECATUR DAILY 201 1st Ave. SE P.O. Box 2213 Decatur, Ala.
35609 (256) 353-4612 webmaster@decaturdaily.com
[webmaster@decaturdaily.com]
*****************************************************************
25 NRC: Sacramento Municipal Utility District; Rancho Seco Nuclear
FR Doc 05-23
[Federal Register: January 4, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 2)]
[Notices] [Page 394-396] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr04ja05-90]
Generating Station; Partial Exemption from Requirements of 10 CFR
50.719(c); 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A; 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B
1.0 Background Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) is
the licensee and holder of Facility Operating License No. DPR-54
for the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station (Rancho Seco), a
permanently shutdown decommissioning nuclear plant. Although
permanently shutdown, this facility is still subject to all
rules, regulations, and orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC). The Sacramento Municipal Utility District
(SMUD) shut down Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station
permanently on June 7, 1989, after approximately 15 years of
operation. On August 29, 1989, SMUD formally informed the NRC
that the plant was shut down permanently. On May 20, 1991, SMUD
submitted the Rancho Seco decommissioning plan and on March 20,
1995, the NRC issued an Order approving the decommissioning plan
and authorizing the decommissioning of Rancho Seco.
SMUD began actively decommissioning Rancho Seco in February 1997,
and completed the transfer of all of the spent nuclear fuel to
the 10 CFR Part 72 licensed Independent Spent Fuel Storage
Installation (ISFSI) on August 21, 2002. Accordingly, the only
quality-related structures, systems, or components (SSCs) at the
Rancho Seco 10 CFR Part 50 licensed site are the radioactive
sources used to calibrate the instrumentation used to measure
radioactivity in gaseous and liquid effluents.
Plant dismantlement is substantially (approximately 80%) complete
and most of the SSCs that were safety-related or
important-to-safety have been removed from the plant and shipped
for disposal. The pressurizer was shipped to Envirocare for
disposal in April 2004, removal of the steam generators is in
progress with both steam generators scheduled to be shipped to
Envirocare by spring 2005 (one by the end of 2004 and the second
in spring 2005), and activities in preparation for the reactor
vessel internals segmentation are underway and mobilization of
the segmentation contractor is scheduled to begin in early 2005.
On September 2, 2004, SMUD filed a request for NRC approval of a
partial exemption from the recordkeeping requirements of 10 CFR
50.71(c); 10 CFR 50, Appendix A; and 10 CFR 50, Appendix B. 2.0
Request/Action Pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(d)(2)
and 10 CFR 50.12, SMUD requested partial exemption to the
recordkeeping requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(c); 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix A; CFR Part 50, Appendix B. This exemption request was
characterized as ``partial'' because the exemption would apply
only to the disposal of hardcopies of records, prior to
termination of the Rancho Seco license, that: (1) Are associated
with the operation, design, fabrication, erection, and testing of
structures, systems, and components (SSCs) that are no longer
quality-related or important to safety or have been removed from
the plant for disposal; and (2) require storage in their original
hard copy format due to practical and feasibility limitations
associated with transferring them to microfilm or microfiche.
Most of these records are for SSCs that have been removed from
Rancho Seco and disposed of off-site. Disposal of these records
will not adversely impact the ability to meet other NRC
regulatory requirements for the retention of records [e.g., 10
CFR 50.54(a), (p), (q), and (bb); 10 CFR 50.59(d); 10 CFR
50.75(g); etc.]. These regulatory requirements ensure that
records from operation and decommissioning activities are
maintained for safe decommissioning, spent nuclear fuel storage,
completion and verification of final site survey, and license
termination.
3.0 Discussion NRC licensees are required to maintain their
records according to the NRC regulatory recordkeeping
requirements. Pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.12,
``Specific Exemptions,'' and 10 CFR 50.71(d)(2), SMUD filed a
request for a partial exemption from the NRC regulatory
recordkeeping requirements contained in 10 CFR 50.71(c), 10 CFR
50, Appendix A, and 10 CFR 50, Appendix B. The NRC recordkeeping
requirements at issue in SMUD's request for exemption are as
follows.
10 CFR 50.71, ``Maintenance of records, making of reports,''
subpart (c) states: Records that are required by the regulations
in this part, by license condition, or by technical
specifications, must be retained for the period specified by the
appropriate regulation, license condition, or technical
specification. If a retention period is not otherwise specified,
these records must be retained until the Commission terminates
the facility license.
10 CFR 50, Appendix A, ``General Design Criteria for Nuclear
Power Plants,'' establishes the necessary design, fabrication,
construction, testing, and performance requirements for
structures, systems, and components important to safety; that is,
structures, systems, and components that provide reasonable
assurance that the facility can be operated without undue risk to
the health and safety of the public. Specifically, SMUD requests
an exemption from Criterion 1, `` Quality standards and
records,'' which states in part: Appropriate records of the
design, fabrication, erection, and testing of structures,
systems, and components important to safety shall be maintained
by or under the control of the nuclear power unit licensee
throughout the life of the unit.'' 10 CFR 50, Appendix B,
``Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel
Reprocessing Plants,'' establishes quality assurance requirements
for the design, construction, and operation of structures,
systems, and components that prevent or mitigate the consequences
of postulated accidents that could cause undue risk to the health
and safety of the public. Specifically, SMUD requests an
exemption from Criterion XVII, ``Quality Assurance Records,''
which states: Sufficient records shall be maintained to furnish
evidence of activities affecting quality. The records shall
include at least the following: Operating logs and the results of
reviews, inspections, tests, audits, monitoring of work
performance, and materials analyses. The records shall also
include closely-related data such as qualifications of personnel,
procedures, and equipment. Inspection and test records shall, as
a minimum, identify the inspector or data recorder, the type of
observation, the results, the acceptability, and the action taken
in connection with any deficiencies noted. Records shall be
identifiable and retrievable.
[[Page 395]] Consistent with applicable regulatory requirements,
the applicant shall establish requirements concerning record
retention, such as duration, location, and assigned
responsibility.
Exemption Requirements As stated in 10 CFR 50.12, ``[t]he
Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon
its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of the
regulations of this part.'' In order to permit specific
exemptions from the requirements of this part the criteria of 10
CFR 50.12(a)(1) and the requirements of 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2) must
be met. 10 CFR 50(a)(1) requires three criteria to be met before
an exemption can be granted: first, the exemptions must be
authorized by law; second, the exemption must not present an
undue risk to the public health and safety; and third, it must be
consistent with the common defense and security. In addition, for
the Commission to consider granting an exemption from the
requirements of Part 50, special circumstances as required by 10
CFR 50.12(a)(2) must be present. The special circumstance at
issue in the present request for exemption is 50.12(a)(2)(ii)
which states, ``[a]pplication of the regulation in the particular
circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule
or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the
rule.'' The application of the three criteria in 50.12(a)(1) and
the requirement of special circumstances in 50.12(a)(2) are
addressed below.
Specific Exemption Is Authorized by Law The partial exemption
from the recordkeeping requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(c); 10 CFR
Part 50, Appendix A; and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, as requested
for the hard copy records described above is authorized by law.
Specifically, 10 CFR 50.71(d)(2) allows for the granting of
specific exemptions to the record retention requirements
specified in the regulations.
NRC regulation 10 CFR 50.71(d)(2) states, in part: the retention
period specified in the regulations in this part for such records
shall apply unless the Commission, pursuant to Sec.
50.12 of this part, has granted a specific exemption from the
record retention requirements specified in the regulations in
this part.
Based on 10 CFR 50.71(d)(2), since the specific exemption
requirements of 10 CFR 50.12 are satisfied as described below,
the exemption from the recordkeeping requirements of 10 CFR
50.71(c); 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A; and 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix B is authorized by law.
Specific Exemption Will Not Present an Undue Risk to the Public
Health and Safety With all of the spent nuclear fuel transferred
to the Rancho Seco ISFSI, there is insufficient radioactive
material remaining on the Rancho Seco 10 CFR Part 50 licensed
site to pose any significant potential risk to the public health
and safety under any credible event scenario. This provides
additional assurance that the partial exemption for the specified
hard copy records will not present any reasonable possibility of
undue risk to the public health and safety.
In two letters dated February 5, 2002, the NRC granted Amendment
Nos. 129 and 130 to the Rancho Seco Operating License (Possession
Only). These amendments deleted definitions, LCOs, surveillance
requirements, and administrative requirements from the 10 CFR
Part 50 Technical Specifications on the basis that all of the
spent nuclear fuel was transferred to the Rancho Seco ISFSI. In a
letter dated October 10, 2002, the NRC issued an exemption from
10 CFR Part 50 security requirements and Amendment No. 131 to the
Rancho Seco Operating License to reflect this security exemption.
Hence, the NRC has already concurred with the conclusion that
granting regulatory exemptions will have no reasonable
possibility of presenting any undue risk to the public health and
safety.
The partial exemption from the recordkeeping requirements of 10
CFR 50.71(c); 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A; and 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix B, for the hard copy records described above is
administrative in nature and will have no impact on any remaining
decommissioning activities or on radiological effluents. The
exemption will merely advance the schedule for destruction of the
specified hard copy records. Considering the content of these
records, the elimination of these records on an advanced
timetable will have no reasonable possibility of presenting any
undue risk to the public health and safety.
Specific Exemption Consistent With the Common Defense and
Security The partial exemption from the recordkeeping
requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(c); 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A; and
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, for the types of hard copy records
described above is consistent with the common defense and
security as defined in the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2014,
Definitions) and in 10 CFR 50.2 ``Definitions.'' The partial
exemption requested does not impact remaining decommissioning
activities and does not involve information or activities that
could potentially impact the common defense and security of the
United States.
Rather, the exemption requested is administrative in nature and
would merely advance the current schedule for destruction of the
specified hard copy records. Considering the content of these
records, the elimination of these records on an advanced
timetable has no reasonable possibility of having any impact on
national defense or security. Therefore, the partial exemption
from the recordkeeping requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(c); 10 CFR
Part 50, Appendix A; and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, for the
types of hard copy records described above is consistent with the
common defense and security.
Special Circumstances The current status of Rancho Seco facility,
80% dismantled and all irradiated fuel transferred to the ISFSI,
constitutes special circumstances which will allow the NRC to
consider granting the partial exemption requested. Consistent
with 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), applying the recordkeeping
requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(c), 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, and
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B to the continued storage of the hard
copy records described previously is not necessary to achieve the
underlying purpose of the rules.
The underlying purpose of the subject recordkeeping regulations
is to ensure that the NRC staff has access to information that,
in the event of an accident, incident, or condition that could
impact public health and safety, would assist in the recovery
from such an event and could also help prevent future events or
conditions that could adversely impact public health and safety.
Additionally, the NRC staff would access the records as part of
the normal inspection process related to the subject SSCs.
Given the current status of Rancho Seco decommissioning, the
records that would be subject to early destruction would not
provide the NRC with information that would be pertinent or
useful. The types of records that would fall under the exemption
would include hard copy radiographs, vendor equipment technical
manuals, and recorder charts associated with operating nuclear
power plant SSCs that had been classified as important to safety
during power operations, but that are no longer classified as
important to safety, are no longer operational, or have
[[Page 396]] removed from the Rancho Seco site for disposal.
With the majority of the primary and secondary systems removed
for disposal, the Rancho Seco site no longer houses ``a nuclear
power reactor and associated equipment necessary for electric
power generation.'' Thus, with respect to the underlying intent
of the recordkeeping rules cited above, Rancho Seco is not able
to generate electricity and is no longer a nuclear power unit as
defined in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A.
In addition, with all the spent nuclear fuel having been
transferred to the ISFSI, there is not sufficient radioactive
material inventory remaining on the 10 CFR Part 50 licensed site
to pose any significant potential risk to the public health and
safety.
Thus, there are no longer any ``structures, systems, and
components required to provide reasonable assurance the facility
can be operated without undue risk to the health and safety of
the public.'' This provides additional assurance that, with
respect to the underlying intent of the recordkeeping rules,
Rancho Seco is no longer a nuclear power unit as defined in 10
CFR Part 50, Appendix A.
Based on the above, application of the subject recordkeeping
requirements to the Rancho Seco hard copy records specified above
is not required to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule.
Thus, special circumstances are present which the NRC may
consider, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), to grant the
requested exemption. 4.0 Conclusion The staff agrees that 10 CFR
50.71(d)(2) allows the Commission to grant specific exemptions to
the record retention requirements specified in regulations
provided the requirements of 10 CFR 50.12 are satisfied.
The staff agrees that the requested partial exemption from the
recordkeeping requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(c); 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix A; 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, will not present an undue
risk to the public health and safety. The destruction of the
identified hard copy records will not impact remaining
decommissioning activities; plant operations, configuration,
and/or radiological effluents; operational and/or installed SSCs
that are quality-related or important to safety; or nuclear
security.
The staff agrees that the destruction of the identified hard copy
records is administrative in nature and does not involve
information or activities that could potentially impact the
common defense and security of the United States.
The staff agrees that the purpose for the recordkeeping
regulations is to ensure that the NRC Staff has access to
information that, in the event of any accident, incident, or
condition that could impact public health and safety, would
assist in the protection of public health and safety during
recovery from the given accident, incident, or condition, and
also could help prevent future events or conditions adversely
impacting public health and safety. Further, since most of the
Rancho Seco SSCs that were safety-related or important-to-safety
have been removed from the plant and shipped for disposal, the
staff agrees that the records identified in the partial exemption
would not provide the NRC with useful information during an
investigation of an accident or incident.
Therefore, the Commission grants SMUD the requested partial
exemption to the recordkeeping requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(c);
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A; 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, as
described in the September 2, 2004, letter.
Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51, the Commission has determined that
the granting of this exemption will not have a significant effect
on the quality of the human environment as documented in Federal
Register (69 FR 67371, Nov. 17, 2004). This exemption is
effective upon issuance.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 23rd day of December, 2004.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Daniel M. Gillen, Deputy Director, Decommissioning Directorate,
Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office
of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 05-23 Filed 1-3-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
26 NRC: Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company, Maine Yankee Independent
FR Doc 05-24
[Federal Register: January 4, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 2)]
[Notices] [Page 396-398] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr04ja05-91]
Spent Fuel Storage Installation, Issuance of Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact I. Introduction
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of exemptions to Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company (the
licensee), pursuant to title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) 72.7, from specific provisions of 10 CFR
72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(i), 72.212(b)(7), and 72.214. The
licensee is storing spent nuclear fuel under the general
licensing provisions of 10 CFR part 72 in the NAC-UMS[supreg]
Universal Storage System at an independent spent fuel storage
installation (ISFSI) located at the Maine Yankee Atomic Power
Station in Wiscasset, Maine. The requested exemptions would allow
the licensee to deviate from requirements of the NAC-UMS[supreg]
Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1015, Amendment 2, Appendix
A, Technical Specifications for the NAC-UMS[supreg] System,
Section A 5.1, Training Program, and Section A 5.5, Radioactive
Effluent Control Program. Specifically, the exemptions would
relieve the licensee from the requirements to: (1) Develop
training modules under its systematic approach to training (SAT)
that include comprehensive instructions for the operation and
maintenance of the ISFSI, except for the NAC-UMS[supreg]
Universal Storage System; and (2) submit an annual report
pursuant to 10 CFR 72.44(d)(3). II. Environmental Assessment (EA)
Identification of Proposed Action: The proposed action is to
exempt the licensee from regulatory requirements to develop
certain training and submit an annual report. By letter dated
February 25, 2004, as supplemented June 8, 2004, the licensee
requested exemptions from certain regulatory requirements of 10
CFR 72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(2)(i), 72.212(b)(7), and 72.214 which
require a general licensee to store spent fuel in an
NRC-certified spent fuel storage cask under the terms and
conditions set forth in the CoC. The proposed exemptions would
allow the licensee to deviate from the requirements in CoC No.
1015, Amendment 2, Appendix A, Technical Specifications for the
NAC-UMS[supreg] System, Section A 5.1, Training Program, and
Section A 5.5, Radioactive Effluent Control Program. CoC No.
1015, Amendment 2, Appendix A, Technical Specifications for the
NAC-UMS System, Section A 5.1, Training Program, requires that a
training program for the NAC-UMS[supreg] Universal Storage System
be developed under the general licensee's SAT. Further, the
training modules must include comprehensive instructions for the
operation and maintenance of both the NAC-UMS[supreg] Universal
Storage System and the ISFSI. In addition, CoC No. 1015,
Amendment 2, Appendix A, Technical Specifications for the NAC-UMS
System, Section A 5.5, Radioactive Effluent Control Program, Item
c. requires an annual report to be submitted pursuant to 10 CFR
72.44(d)(3). By exempting the licensee
[[Page 397]] from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(a),
72.212(b)(2)(i), 72.212(b)(7), and 72.214 for this request, the
licensee will not be required to either develop training modules
that include comprehensive instructions for the operation and
maintenance of the ISFSI or submit an annual report pursuant to
10 CFR 72.44(d)(3). The proposed action before the NRC is whether
to grant these exemptions under the provisions of 10 CFR 72.7.
Need for the Proposed Action: The NRC has determined that the
requirements of CoC No. 1015, Amendment 2, Appendix A, Technical
Specifications for the NAC-UMS[supreg] System, Section A 5.1,
Training Program, and Section A 5.5, Radioactive Effluent Control
Program impose regulatory obligations, with associated costs,
that do not provide a commensurate increase in safety. Granting
the requested exemptions will allow the licensee not to have to:
(1) Develop training modules under the SAT that include
comprehensive instructions for the operation and maintenance of
the ISFSI, except for the NAC-UMS[supreg] Universal Storage
System; or (2) submit an annual report pursuant to 10 CFR
72.44(d)(3). Thus, the licensee will not incur the costs
associated with these activities.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action: The NRC has
reviewed the exemption requests submitted by the licensee and
determined that not requiring the licensee to: (1) Develop
training modules under its SAT that include comprehensive
instructions for the operation and maintenance of the ISFSI,
except for the NAC-UMS[supreg] Universal Storage System; and (2)
submit an annual report pursuant to 10 CFR 72.44(d)(3) are
administrative changes, and would have no significant impacts to
the environment.
Further, NRC has evaluated the impact to public safety that would
result from granting the requested exemptions. NRC determined
that requiring the licensee to develop training modules under its
SAT for the operation and maintenance of ISFSI structures,
systems, and components considered not-important-to-safety would
not provide a commensurate increase in public safety associated
with the costs. Therefore, allowing the licensee to develop these
modules separately from its SAT does not impact public safety.
Also, NRC has determined that not requiring the licensee to
submit an annual report specifying principal radionuclides
released to the environment in liquid and in gaseous effluents
does not impact public safety because the NAC- UMS[supreg]
Universal Storage System is a sealed and leak-tight spent fuel
storage system. Thus, there should be no releases to the
environment of either liquid or gaseous effluents from normal
operation of the NAC-UMS[supreg] Universal Storage System.
The proposed action would not increase the probability or
consequences of accidents, no changes would be made to the types
of effluents that may be released offsite, and there would be no
increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore,
there are no significant radiological environmental impacts
associated with the proposed action. Additionally the proposed
action would have no significant non-radiological impacts.
Alternative to the Proposed Action: The alternative to the
proposed action would be to deny approval of these exemptions.
Denial of these exemption requests would have the same
environmental impact as the proposed action.
Agencies and Persons Consulted: The NRC prepared this EA. No
other sources were used. NRC, by letter dated August 10, 2004,
provided a draft of this EA to the Honorable Charles Pray, State
Nuclear Safety Advisor for the State of Maine for review. The
State of Maine by letter dated November 15, 2004, did not
indicate it had any environmental concerns related to granting
the proposed exemptions. However, the State of Maine did provide
the following comment: In that, the State of Maine has no
objection to the NRC granting the exemption for the current
existing licensure period as long as the current outstanding
statutory obligations of the United States government are met in
all of its responsibility in reference to [the] MYAPC facility,
and that no extensions of the current twenty- year licensure of
the ISFSI is approved. Any extension granted by the NRC beyond
that date will [alter] the State's approval on this and other
related matters and will require a need for ongoing assessment by
the State of Maine of safety benefits to the citizens of Maine
beyond its original and current licensed mission. The State would
be required to fully [assess] as to how best [to] protect the
citizens of the State from further federal lapses of obligations.
The staff has reviewed the State of Maine's comment and
determined that neither exemption is coupled with extending the
period of the Maine Yankee's general license for its ISFSI beyond
the twenty-year period of its use of the NAC-UMS[supreg]
Universal Storage System. Certificate of Compliance No. 1015 will
be eligible for renewal at the expiration of this period and, if
application for reapproval is made, the State of Maine will have
an opportunity to comment on such application at that time.
Further, The NRC has determined that a consultation under Section
7 of the Endangered Species Act is not required because the
proposed action will not affect listed species or critical
habitats. The NRC has also determined that the proposed action is
not a type of activity having the potential to cause effects on
historic properties. Therefore, no consultation is required under
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
Conclusions: The NRC has concluded that the proposed action of
granting these exemptions and not requiring the licensee to
develop certain training or submit an annual report will not
significantly impact the quality of the human environment and
does not warrant the preparation of an environmental impact
statement. Accordingly, it has been determined that a Finding of
No Significant Impact is appropriate.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact The environmental impacts
of the proposed action have been reviewed in accordance with the
requirements set forth in 10 CFR part 51.
Based upon the foregoing EA, the NRC finds that the proposed
action of granting exemptions from the specific provisions of 10
CFR 72.212(a), 72.212(b)(2)(i), 72.212(b)(7), and 72.214 and not
requiring the licensee to: (1) Develop training modules under its
SAT that include comprehensive instructions for the operation and
maintenance of the ISFSI, except for the NAC-UMS[supreg]
Universal Storage System; and (2) submit an annual report
pursuant to 10 CFR 72.44(d)(3), will not significantly impact the
quality of the human environment.
Accordingly, the NRC has determined that an environmental impact
statement for these proposed exemptions is not warranted.
The request for exemption was docketed under 10 CFR part 72,
Docket 72-30. Please note that on October 25, 2004, the NRC
suspended public access to the Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS), and initiated an additional security
review of publicly available documents to ensure that potentially
sensitive information is removed from the ADAMS database
accessible through the NRC's Web site. Interested members of the
public should check the NRC's Web pages for updates on the
availability of documents through ADAMS.
When public access to ADAMS is restored the documents related to
this action, including the application for the exemptions and
supporting
[[Page 398]] documentation, will be available electronically at
the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html]
. From this site you can access the NRC's ADAMS, which provides
text and image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS
accession numbers for the documents related to this notice are:
For the request for exemptions dated February 25, 2004, the ADAMS
accession number is ML040620577, and for the supplement dated
June 8, 2004, the ADAMS accession number is ML041690143.
When public access to ADAMS is resumed and you do not have access
to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR)
Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail
to pdr@nrc.gov [pdr@nrc.gov] . Also, after resumption of public
access to ADAMS, these documents may also be viewed
electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR,
O1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD
20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a
fee.
Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 13th of December, 2004.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Stewart W. Brown, Sr. Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office,
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 05-24 Filed 1-3-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
27 AP Wire: Meeting on troubled nuclear plant pushed back a week
| 01/03/2005 |
Associated Press
KING OF PRUSSIA, Pa. - The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission
has delayed a meeting to discuss whether a nuclear power plant
in Salem County is safe enough to start up again.
The meeting had been scheduled for Wednesday, but has been
pushed back to Jan. 12 because the commission has not finished a
report on one problem at the Hope Creek plant, said Neil
Sheehan, a spokesman for the NRC's regional office.
The Hope Creek plant, one of three on Artificial Island in Lower
Alloways Creek, was shut down after a steam leak on Oct. 10.
But activists and several government officials, including New
Jersey Environmental Protection Commissioner Bradley M.
Campbell, say the plant's owner, Public Service Energy Group,
should also replace a recirculation pump at the reactor before
restarting.
PSEG says the pump is safe enough to operate and that it will
replace the part the next time the plant has a regularly
scheduled shutdown for refueling and maintenance.
The NRC has not ordered PSEG to keep Hope Creek shut down, but
the energy company has agreed not to restart until it gets an OK
from the agency.
The Jan. 12 meeting will be held in Swedesboro.
CentreDaily.com
*****************************************************************
28 FT.com: Wilson kept public in dark over fears on safety of nuclear plants
By Jimmy Burns
Published: January 4 2005 02:00 | Last updated: January 4 2005
Harold Wilson's Labour government was concerned about the safety
of nuclear power establishments despite reassuring the public
that adequate measures were in place to deal with leakage or
sabotage.
The gulf between the fears shared within Whitehall and what
officials were authorised to disclose publicly are contained in
government files covering a period of weeks leading up to Mr
Wilson's re-election as prime-minister in October 1974.
The files, released today to the public, show the vulnerability
of nuclear power stations, prior to the critical review of
operational practices that were forced on governments and
companies during the 1980s by the incidents at Three Mile Island
in the US and Chernobyl.
It was also during the 1980s that an official report revealed
the level of radiation at Calder Hall, near Windscale in
Cumbria, was more that 40 times higher than originally claimed
when a reactor there caught fire in October 1957. Seventeen
years after the accident at Windscale, the public was kept in
the dark about the flaws in contingency plans for similar
accidents.
Internal memorandums circulating in Whitehall in summer 1974
showed officials were being briefed to reassure the public that
those in charge of nuclear installations were able to resist "an
attempt to seize nuclear material by force".
In fact, as a memorandum from one senior official recognises,
the statement was "barely true" in respect of installations
under the responsibility of the nationalised Central Electricity
Generating Board. The official stated "there must be grave
doubts" as to whether police and military could reach "the two
most remote sensitive sites" of Dounreay and Windscale "in time
to be effective".
There was also concern within Whitehall about the security risk
of plutonium transportation across the UK after a confidential
analysis by agovernment scientific adviser revealed that during
the mid-1970s the number of movements per annum in quantities
well in excess of what constituted a "serious hazard" had risen
to 213.
* Security arrangements for the Channel tunnel considered under
the government of Edward Heath envisaged using a small nuclear
device to seal its entrance in the event of war. The
recommendation is contained in an exchange of secret memorandums
and letters between senior Whitehall officials in the weeks
leading to Mr Heath's election defeat in February 1974.
© Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2005. "FT" and "Financial
Times" are trademarks of the Financial Times.
*****************************************************************
29 NC Times: San Onofre reactor not working at full capcity
North County Times - North San Diego and Southwest Riverside
County News
[http://www.nctimes.com/
Tuesday, January 4, 2005 12:57
By: Wire Reports -
SAN ONOFRE - An abnormal knocking noise emanating from a water
pump is keeping one of two nuclear reactors from working at full
capacity at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, it was
reported today.
One of two feed-water pumps connected to one of of the reactors
has been producing an abnormal knocking noise, Ray golden, a San
Onofre spokesman, told The San Diego Union-Tribune.
The pump also has failed to shut off properly during stress
tests, he told the newspaper.
Crews will conduct more stress tests on the pump today, and the
reactor -- designated as Unit 3 -- should reach 100 percent power
by Friday, Golden told the Union-Tribune. Both pumps are needed
for the rector to reach full power.
Unit 3 was shut down for refueling and routine maintenance Sept.
26 and went back online Dec. 28. CNS-01-4-2005 07:16
[http://www.nctimes.com] Home [http://www.nctimes.com]
webmaster@nctimes.com [webmaster@nctimes.com] © 1997-2005 North
County Times - Lee Enterprises
*****************************************************************
30 SD Union-Tribune: Pump malfunction slows nuke reactor
SignOnSanDiego.com >
Sand Diego UNION-TRIBUNE
January 4, 2005
SAN ONOFRE
A knocking noise emanating from a water pump at the San Onofre
Nuclear Generating Station has kept one of its two nuclear
reactors from working at 100 percent power, plant officials said.
Unit 3 was shut down for refueling and routine maintenance Sept.
26. The 1,100-megawatt reactor came back online Dec. 28, when it
began generating electricity for the power grid.
One of two feed-water pumps connected to the reactor was making
an abnormal knocking noise that crews had to address, said Ray
Golden, a San Onofre spokesman. Then the pump was not shutting
off properly during stress tests, Golden said.
Crews will conduct more stress tests on the pump today, he said,
and Unit 3 should reach 100 percent power by Friday.
Both pumps are needed for the reactor to reach full power.
The plant is owned by Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas &
Electric Co. and the cities of Riverside and Anaheim. It provides
power for 2.3 million Southern California residents.
LA JOLLA
Driver hits garage, is badly injured
The driver of a Nissan Sentra suffered serious injuries when his
car smashed into a garage on Torrey Pines Road, police said.
The accident involving the 26-year-old driver happened at 12:23
a.m. Sunday, police said. He was hospitalized with a broken
shoulder and back, and neck and internal injuries, San Diego
police Sgt. Diane Wendell said.
Police have not determined why the man smashed into the garage
after veering off the street.
SAN DIEGO
4 are sentenced in 2003 slaying
Three Chula Vista men and a 17-year-old boy were sentenced to
prison by a San Diego Superior Court judge yesterday for the 2003
stabbing death of an 18-year-old man in Chula Vista's Eucalyptus
Park.
The four pleaded guilty in a September plea agreement to
voluntary manslaughter in the slaying of Thomas Michael Owens on
Sept. 22, 2003.
In exchange for the guilty pleas, prosecutor Sophia Roach said
other charges, including murder, robbery and battery on a police
officer, were dropped. If convicted of the original charges, the
four could have faced life in prison.
Judge Melinda J. Lasater sentenced Jeffrey Meza, 27, and Esteban
Sandoval, 23, to 27 years in prison. The judge sentenced Eric
Damian Esparza, 19, and Jesse Pantoja, 17, to 16 years in prison.
Pantoja was charged as an adult.
Sandoval and Meza got longer terms because they admitted prior
felony convictions, Roach said. She said Esparza and Pantoja
admitted being members of a street gang.
Police said Owens and two friends went to the park on McIntosh
Street to play with a paint-ball gun. As they entered the park,
they were confronted by members of a local gang, and Owens was
stabbed, prosecutors said.
© Copyright 2004 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.
*****************************************************************
31 Herald: Nuclear power can stop all the waste involved in wind farms
Web Issue 2173 January 04 2005
[http://www.pressnow.co.uk]
[http://www.sundayherald.com/]
Your Letters January 04 2005
Thanks to Messrs Alan Clayton and Gordon Morgan for their
letters on January 3, and to you for publishing them.
Many of the figures and concerns expressed by those with strong
emotive objections to nuclear power are as relevant as
objections to rail transport because of the smoke and steam, the
demeaning task of stoking the boiler and the overall
inefficiency of steam locomotives.
Like the reactors now being shut down, these bear little
comparison with modern locomotives. The designers of modern
nuclear power stations have taken major steps to improve the
safety and efficiency of nuclear generators which are now highly
resistant to terrorist attack.
It is sad that Mr Blair is too afraid of the reactions of the
electorate to publicise these positive factors and make the
decision to proceed with new nuclear power stations rather than
waste time, money and the environment with wind farms. Danish
experience indicates they should not be relied on for more than
10% of national generating capacity because of control factors.
If we suffer from power blackouts in eight to 10 years, Blair
will be responsible.
Bill Scott, 23 Lynn Drive, Eaglesham.
THE letter from Gordon Morgan admitting that nuclear power
should be "considered" but opposing it on the grounds that waste
must be guarded for 2500 years and questioning the cost is
wrong. Reactor waste is highly radioactive precisely because it
has a very short half-life and will be less radioactive than the
ore it was mined from in 50 years. If the cubic metre per
reactor year produced is buried several thousand feet down there
will be no "foregone use of land". There is no need for improved
emission standards since the radioactivity level around
Hunterston is considerably lower than that of Aberdeenshire. By
comparison there are areas of west Cornwall which have had,
since before man reached these shores, a natural radioactivity
five times the official safe limit without harm.
Nuclear power at 2.3p a unit (this is the full cost including
decommissioning and storage as attested by the recent report of
the David Hume Institute) is the cheapest and most reliable
method of power generation costing less than one-third of the
windmills foisted on us by the green lobby.
I would disagree with Mr Morgan that it is now time to begin to
"open up the debate". Hunterston is due to close in six years
and Torness in 20. As someone who believed he was "debating"
when he put these same points to the LibDem conference three
years ago, during which debate Ross Finnie promised no power
shortfall would happen, I would not wish to be still debating
when the lights go out.
Neil Craig, 27 Woodlands Drive, Glasgow.
IN the recent debates on energy, I sensed a wide and notable
knowledge gap between those promoting renewables and those in
the nuclear lobby. The renewables camp had a good grasp of the
environmental issues surrounding the safe handling of nuclear
fuel, and safe disposal of the waste, but less depth of
knowledge regarding electricity generation and supply, whereas
the nuclear lobby have a greater wealth of knowledge regarding
the latter, but a poor grasp of the former.
Surely a holistic approach is required? It is likely that a
catch-all debate and subsequent in-depth study would result in a
conclusive report to set the scene for future power generation.
The balance that needs to be found between these issues is not
sufficiently addressed in the recent government Energy White
Paper.
Should there develop a more whole and rounded approach to
electricity generation through a definitive reportage of the
role of nuclear in today's and tomorrow's world, leading to the
development of technologies that produce safer waste from this
type of generation, we would have a more common-sense approach.
This would contrast with the current mood of lobbying by vested
interest. A logical, common-sense approach would follow and
could show that the unusually robust nuclear energy rationale is
sound and may ultimately find favour with intelligent people
everywhere.
David McCloy, 189 St Clair Street, Kirkcaldy.
Copyright © Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights
[http://www.pressnow.co.uk/]
*****************************************************************
32 Platts: NRC to extend deadline for USEC intervention petitions for some
[The McGraw-Hill Companies]
+ The NRC commission will allow more time to file challenges to
USEC Inc.'s proposed commercial American Centrifuge enrichment
plant at Portsmouth, Ohio. In an order issued late last week, the
commission said it would extend the filing date for intervention
petitions until the end of February.
But the commission said that only those parties that had asked it
to extend the original filing deadline of Dec. 17 could take
advantage of the new schedule.
Several individuals and interest groups had sought the extension,
pointing out that key records (e.g., USEC's application and
environmental report) had been removed from the agency's
record-keeping system Oct. 25 while the NRC staff searched for
terrorist-useful information.
Redacted versions of the documents have now been restored to the
NRC's record-keeping system. Among those asking for more time
were the Nuclear Information &Resource Service, the Central Ohio
Sierra Club Group, and the Portsmouth/Piketon Residents for
Environmental Safety &Security (Press).
Washington (Platts)--3Jan2005
Copyright © 2005 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
[The McGraw-Hill Companies]
*****************************************************************
33 GAZETTE ONLINE: Alliant plans auction to sell nuclear plant
Cedar Rapids: Gazetteonline.com
KCRG-TV
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
Alliant Energy will hold an auction to sell its 70 percent
stake in the Duane Arnold Energy Center near Palo. The decision
to auction Iowa's only nuclear plant rather than negotiating
with potential buyers was based on a desire to keep the process
open and the public informed. Details, Page 1A of today's
Gazette e-Edition [http://ee.gazetteonline.com]
There's more in Tuesday's e-Edition including:
+ Accent, Page 1E: If you're going to keep your fitness
resolutions, do a fridge makeover. We tell you how.
All local content copyright © 2004 by Gazette
Communications [http://www.gazettecommunications.com/]
500 3rd Ave SE - PO Box 511 - Cedar Rapids, IAÂ 52406
*****************************************************************
34 EA: Cincinnati study of Chernobyl residents uncovers new cause of thyroid cancer
EurekAlert! ]] Public release date: 3-Jan-2005
Contact: Brooke Grindlinger
press_releases@the-jci.org [press_releases@the-jci.org]
212-342-9006
Journal of Clinical Investigation [http://www.jci.org]
Cincinnati study of Chernobyl residents uncovers new cause of
thyroid cancer
Cincinnati University scientists studying papillary thyroid
cancer in Chernobyl residents following the 1986 nuclear plant
accident have identified a novel genetic mutation event that
occurs as a result of their exposure to high levels of
radioiodide.
Yuri E. Nukiforov led a team of researchers from both Cincinnati
University and the University of Munich in identifying a novel
oncogene (a mutated and/or overproduced version of a normal gene
that alone or together with other changes can convert a cell
into a tumor cell) in papillary thyroid carcinomas that
developed in patients exposed to radiation at Chernobyl. Their
results are published in the January 3 issue of the Journal of
Clinical Investigation.
Mutations of the genes BRAF, RET, or RAS are found in 70% of all
cases of papillary thyroid tumors. In sporadic tumors (where
patients have not been exposed to high levels of radiation), the
most common genetic mutational event occurs within the BRAF
gene. In contrast, mutations observed in radiation-induced
tumors most commonly involve fusion of one end of the RET gene
to the opposite end of various other genes to create a "chimeric
oncogene." The two most common gene rearrangement types are
called RET/PTC1 and RET/PTC3. Both types of mutations promote
transformation of normal cells into malignant cells.
In their current study, Nukiforov and colleagues identified a
novel oncogene in Chernobyl residents with papillary thyroid
cancer. This oncogene resulted from fusion of part of the AKAP9
gene with one end of the BRAF gene; both genes are present
within chromosome 7. The intrachromosomal AKAP9-BRAF fusion
event resulted in the loss of portions of the BRAF protein that
normally inhibit the kinase activity of BRAF. BRAF is then able
to transmit uncontrolled signals to normal cells that promote
their division and transformation into malignant tumor cells.
In an accompanying commentary, Alfredo Fusco and colleagues from
Università degli Studi di Napoli "Federico II", in Naples, state
that this study "provides further evidence supporting the
concept that chromosomal inversions represent the most typical
molecular lesion in tumors occurring in Belarus and the
surrounding region after the Chernobyl accident….the peculiar
susceptibility of thyroid follicular cells to chromosomal
rearrangement is remarkable."
This study represents a major breakthrough in our knowledge of
the genetic events involved in papillary thyroid initiation. It
demonstrates that while BRAF activation is a common feature of
both sporadic and post-Chernobyl thyroid cancers, it is the
genetic event underlying BRAF activation that can differentiate
between the two types of tumors, with a higher proportion of
point mutations occurring in sporadic thyroid cancers and
intrachromosomal inversion responsible for a larger percentage
of radiation-induced tumors. At this stage, the signaling
pathway activated as a result of these mutational events (known
as the MAPK pathway) is the most attractive target for new drugs
that may intervene in the development of human papillary thyroid
carcinomas.
###
TITLE: Oncogenic AKAP9-BRAF fusion is a novel mechanism of MAPK
pathway activation in thyroid cancer
AUTHOR CONTACT: Yuri Nikiforov
University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Phone: 513-558-5798; Fax: 513-558-2289; E-mail:
Yuri.Nikiforov@uc.edu [Yuri.Nikiforov@uc.edu]
A PDF of this article this article is available at:
http://www.jci.org/cgi/content/full/115/1/94
[http://www.jci.org/cgi/content/full/115/1/94] .
ACCOMPANYING COMMENTARY:
TITLE: A new mechanism of BRAF activation in human thyroid
papillary carcinomas
AUTHOR CONTACT: Alfredo Fusco
Università degli Studi di Napoli "Federico II", Naples, Italy.
Phone: 0039-0813722857; Fax: 0039-0817463749; E-mail:
afusco@napoli.com [afusco@napoli.com]
*****************************************************************
35 NRC: Notice of Issuance of License Amendment for Termination of
FR Doc 04-28675
[Federal Register: January 3, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 1)]
[Notices] [Page 125-126] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr03ja05-93]
License SUB-00971 for ATK Ordnance and Ground Systems, LLC Arden
Hills, Minnesota AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George M. McCann, Senior Health
Physicist, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Material
Safety, Region III, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2443
Warrenville Road, Lisle, Illinois 60532; Telephone: (630)
829-9856; fax number: (630) 515-1259; e-mail: gmm@nrc.gov
[gmm@nrc.gov] .
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is issuing a license amendment to terminate
Source Material License No. SUB-00971 issued to ATK Ordnance and
Ground Systems, LLC, (ATK) and to authorize for unrestricted use
its former depleted uranium production facilities, located at the
Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant, Arden Hills, Minnesota. On
October 25, 2001, the NRC amended ATK's license to include an
NRC-approved decommissioning plan supported by an Environmental
Assessment and a Finding of No Significant Impact.
These documents addressed the impacts of ATK's request to
decommission its former depleted uranium facilities, including
final status survey plans and the licensee's intent to terminate
Source Material License No. SUB- 00971. The NRC published a
Notice of the Agency's proposed action and opportunity to request
a hearing in the Federal Register (63 FR 28015) on May 21, 1998.
In a letter dated June 2, 2004, ATK requested termination of its
NRC radioactive source material license. The NRC staff documented
its review of ATK's final status surveys in a December 13, 2004,
Safety Evaluation Report. Based on its review, the staff
concluded that all licensable radioactive material had been
removed from the ATK facility and residual radioactive material
attributable to licensed activities did not exceed NRC
unrestricted release criteria cited in its decommissioning plan.
[[Page 126]] II. Safety Evaluation Report (SER) Summary The
purpose of the amendment is to terminate ATK's source material
license and authorize for unrestricted release the licensee's
former depleted uranium production facilities located at the Twin
Cities Army Ammunition Plant, Arden Hills, Minnesota. The
licensee started production of uranium munitions in 1976, and
ceased production activities during 1988. The licensee conducted
surveys of its former facilities and site and provided on June
18, 2004, information to the NRC to demonstrate that the site
meets the licensee's termination criteria specified in its
NRC-approved decommissioning plan.
The staff prepared the SER in support of the license amendment.
Based on its review, the NRC staff has determined that the
licensee's final status surveys are adequate to demonstrate
compliance with radiological criteria for license termination,
and that ATK has demonstrated that the former depleted uranium
production site radiological conditions comply with the
radiological criteria for license termination. The NRC staff has
reviewed the proposed amendment and has determined that the
proposed termination will have no adverse effect on the public
health and safety or the environment.
III. Further Information Documents related to this action,
including the application for amendment and supporting
documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's
Electronic Reading Room at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html]
.
From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document
Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and
image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession
numbers for the documents related to this notice are: the ATK
letter dated June 2, 2004 (Accession No. ML042870518); the
licensee's letter dated June 18, 2004, with Safety and Ecology
Corporation ``Final Status Survey Report, Depleted Uranium
Facilities, Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant, New Brighton,
Minnesota,'' Project 1350, Revision 2, June 2004 (Accession No.
ML042950257) attached, and the SER summarized above (Accession
No. ML043560261). If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there
are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact
the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415- 4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov
[pdr@nrc.gov] . Please note that on October 25, 2004, the NRC
terminated public access to ADAMS and initiated an additional
security review of publicly available documents to ensure that
potentially sensitive information is removed from the ADAMS
database accessible through the NRC's Web site. Interested
members of the public may obtain copies of the referenced
documents for review and/or copying by contacting the Public
Document Room pending resumption of public access to ADAMS. The
NRC Public Documents Room is located at NRC Headquarters in
Rockville, MD, and can be contacted at (800) 397-4209 or (301)
415-4737 or pdr@nrc.gov [pdr@nrc.gov] . These documents may also
be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the
NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy
documents for a fee.
Dated at Lisle, Illinois, this 21st day of December 2004.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Kenneth G. O'Brien, Chief, Decommissioning Branch, Division of
Nuclear Materials Safety, Region III.
[FR Doc. 04-28675 Filed 12-30-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
36 NRC: Sunshine Act; Meetings
FR Doc 04-28753
[Federal Register: January 4, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 2)]
[Notices] [Page 398] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr04ja05-92]
Dates: Weeks of January 3, 10, 17, 24, 31, February 7, 2005.
Place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland.
Status: Public and Closed.
Matters To Be Considered: Week of January 3, 2005 Wednesday,
January 5, 2005 2 p.m. Affirmative Session (Public Meeting)
(Tentative) a. Private Fuel Storage (Independent Spent Fuel
Storage Installation); Docket No. 72-22-ISFSI (Tentative) b. Duke
Energy Corp. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2);
Unpublished Board Order (Dec. 17, 2004). (Tentative) Week of
January 10, 2005--Tentative Tuesday, January 11, 2005 9:30 a.m.
Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1 & 9) Wednesday,
January 12, 2005 9:30 a.m. Discussion of Security Issues
(Closed--Ex. 1 & 9) Week of January 17, 2005--Tentative There are
no meetings scheduled for the Week of January 17, 2005.
Week of January 24, 2004--Tentative Monday, January 24, 2005 9:30
a.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1) 1:30 p.m.
Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1, 2, 3, & 4) Tuesday,
January 25, 2005 9:30 a.m. Discussion of Security Issues
(Closed--Ex. 1 Week of January 31, 2005--Tentative Thursday,
February 3, 2005 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Human Capital Initiatives
(Closed--Ex. 2) (Tentative) Week of February 7, 2005--Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of February 7, 2005.
* The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on
short notice. To verify the status of meetings call
(recording)--(301) 415-1292. Contact person for more information:
Dave Gamberoni, (301) 415-1651.
* * * * * The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the
Internet at:
http://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://nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-making/sc
hedule.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:
301-4152100, 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 (201-415-1969). It 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: December 28, 2004.
Dave Gamberoni, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 04-28753 Filed 12-30-04; 9:23 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
*****************************************************************
37 [du-list] DU researcher's sister to sue media re "Mrs Anthrax"
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 14:46:36 -0800
QtaintingXhttpenglishaljazeeranetnrexeresabdcf59ci95i4ebo92ae22obffco52eohtmQiraqiXscientist's
X-Temp-Subjectphrase2: YES rax"
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on darwin.ctyme.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_RCVD_HELO,
FROM_ORG,SUBJ_GROUP,SUBJ_PHRASE2,SUBJ_WHITELIST,WHITE_PHRASE
autolearn=ham version=3.0.2
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ABDCF59C-1951-43B0-92AE-220BFFC052E0.htm
Iraqi scientist's health causes concern
By Ahmed Janabi
Sunday 02 January 2005, 19:16 Makka Time, 16:16 GMT
Nada Ammash has expressed grave concern for her sister, jailed Iraqi
scientist Huda Ammash, after media reports indicated she was is dying in US
custody in Iraq.
Ammash says the whole family is worried about the health of her sister, who
was arrested on 5 May 2003 for her alleged role in Iraq's biological
weapons programme.
"I am sad, angry and anxious because we have not been able to verify the
information that suggests she is dying in custody" Ammash said.
"I have been trying to contact the Red Cross and the US authorities here in
Iraq but to no avail.
"The last time we spoke to her was three weeks ago, when she was allowed to
call us at home. In the last two weeks we were told twice to wait for her
call but she never rang.
Two meetings
Nada Ammash said: "Last week we received a phone call from the US military
telling us to gather at the family home the next day because Dr Huda would
call. We did get together but the telephone never rang."
Huda Ammash has met her family twice since she was jailed. The first
meeting was in November 2003 when her mother was allowed to visit her, but
it was not until September 2004 that she was able to meet the whole family.
Ammash said her sister has been suffering from cancer for years, and has
been under regular medical observation while in custody.
But the US military insists it is providing adequate medical care for its
former government detainees and that Ammash is in good health.
"We are aware that she had been treated for cancer at one time, prior to
ever being detained. She is checked routinely to ensure there is no
reoccurrence. We have no immediate concerns for her health," a US military
officer told the AFP news agency, however.
Legal action
Nada Ammash said she plans to sue media outlets that have promoted her
sister as "Mrs Anthrax" once Huda Ammash's ordeal comes to an end.
"My sister is a scientist with a human interest. She devoted herself to
save the victims of depleted uranium and carried out extensive research in
that field," she said.
"I will take legal action against those who have promoted her as a killer
and tarnished her reputation in the eyes of people in Iraq and around the
world," she said.
Huda Ammash was born in Baghdad in 1953 and earned her degree in
biology/microbiology from Baghdad University in 1975. She pursued her
higher studies at Texas University in the US, where she got her masters
degree in microbiology. In 1983, she got her PhD from the University of
Missouri.
In Iraq, she was a professor at Baghdad University and held a senior
position at the regional command of the Baath Party. She was the first and
only woman member of the regional command of the party.
Her father was a well-known Iraqi statesman and army officer. He became a
defence minister in 1963, vice prime minister in 1968 and an ambassador in
1970.
Protection urged
In Beirut, Lebanon, the Arab Forum appealed in a statement received by
Aljazeera.net for immediate action to "protect jailed Iraqi scientists".
The statement said the Forum has sent letters to the heads of the UN and
Arab League besides other organisations urging them to take action to
protect Iraqi scientists currently in US custody in Iraq.
The statement blamed the assassination of 125 Iraqi scientists and
professors since the US invasion of Iraq in April 2003 on Israel's Mossad
intelligence service and held the US military responsible for the safety of
Iraqi scientists in its custody.
Aljazeera
----------
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.298 / Virus Database: 265.6.7 - Release Date: 12/30/04
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
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/
*****************************************************************
38 [du-list] Iraqi scientist's health causes concern
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 14:46:31 -0800
"My sister is a scientist with a human interest. She devoted
herself to save the victims of depleted uranium and carried
out extensive research in that field...."
1- Iraqi scientist's health causes concern
2- Petition - Free Dr. Huda Ammash and all the Iraqi
Detainees NOW!
--
Iraqi scientist's health causes concern
Ammash has met her family only twice since her arrest in 2003
By Ahmed Janabi
Sunday 02 January 2005, 19:16 Makka Time, 16:16 GMT
Aljazeera
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ABDCF59C-1951-43B0-92AE-220BFFC052E0.htm
Nada Ammash has expressed grave concern for her sister,
jailed Iraqi scientist Huda Ammash, after media reports
indicated she was is dying in US custody in Iraq.
Ammash says the whole family is worried about the health of
her sister, who was arrested on 5 May 2003 for her alleged
role in Iraq's biological weapons programme.
"I am sad, angry and anxious because we have not been able
to verify the information that suggests she is dying in
custody" Ammash said.
"I have been trying to contact the Red Cross and the US
authorities here in Iraq but to no avail.
"The last time we spoke to her was three weeks ago, when she
was allowed to call us at home. In the last two weeks we
were told twice to wait for her call but she never rang.
Two meetings
Nada Ammash said: "Last week we received a phone call from
the US military telling us to gather at the family home the
next day because Dr Huda would call. We did get together but
the telephone never rang."
Leading Iraqi scientists and
professors have been assassinated
Huda Ammash has met her family twice since she was jailed.
The first meeting was in November 2003 when her mother was
allowed to visit her, but it was not until September 2004
that she was able to meet the whole family.
Ammash said her sister has been suffering from cancer for
years, and has been under regular medical observation while
in custody.
But the US military insists it is providing adequate medical
care for its former government detainees and that Ammash is
in good health.
"We are aware that she had been treated for cancer at one
time, prior to ever being detained. She is checked routinely
to ensure there is no reoccurrence. We have no immediate
concerns for her health," a US military officer told the AFP
news agency, however.
Legal action
Nada Ammash said she plans to sue media outlets that have
promoted her sister as "Mrs Anthrax" once Huda Ammash's
ordeal comes to an end.
"My sister is a scientist with a human interest. She devoted
herself to save the victims of depleted uranium and carried
out extensive research in that field," she said.
"I will take legal action against those who have promoted
her as a killer and tarnished her reputation in the eyes of
people in Iraq and around the world," she said.
Huda Ammash was born in Baghdad in 1953 and earned her
degree in biology/microbiology from Baghdad University in
1975. She pursued her higher studies at Texas University in
the US, where she got her masters degree in microbiology. In
1983, she got her PhD from the University of Missouri.
In Iraq, she was a professor at Baghdad University and held
a senior position at the regional command of the Baath
Party. She was the first and only woman member of the
regional command of the party.
Her father was a well-known Iraqi statesman and army
officer. He became a defence minister in 1963, vice prime
minister in 1968 and an ambassador in 1970.
Protection urged
In Beirut, Lebanon, the Arab Forum appealed in a statement
received by Aljazeera.net for immediate action to "protect
jailed Iraqi scientists".
The statement said the Forum has sent letters to the heads
of the UN and Arab League besides other organisations urging
them to take action to protect Iraqi scientists currently in
US custody in Iraq.
The statement blamed the assassination of 125 Iraqi
scientists and professors since the US invasion of Iraq in
April 2003 on Israel's Mossad intelligence service and held
the US military responsible for the safety of Iraqi
scientists in its custody.
----
Free Dr. Huda Ammash and all the Iraqi Detainees NOW! Petition
02/01/2005
http://www.anti-imperialism.net/lai/texte.phtml?section=BD&object_id=23386
Irak http://www.petitiononline.com/freehuda/petition.html
To: UN Secretary General, International Action Center,
Islamic Scientific Society, Southend Press, Environmentalist
Against War, Peace and Resistance
Name: Huda Saleh Mahdi Ammash
Birth: Baghdad September 26, 1953
Social Status: Married with a son and a daughter
Academic Status:
1. She received her B.Sc. from the College of Science,
Baghdad University in 1974.
2. She received her MS in microbiology from the University
of Texas/Dunton.
3. She received her Ph.D. in microbiology from the
University of Missouri/Columbia in 1983.
4. She received the Award for Young Scientists from the
Shoman Academy in Jordan in 1994.
5. She was chosen as a member of the Iraqi Scientific
Society in 1996.
6. She was elected a member of the Islamic Scientific
Society in 2001.
7. She is a member of several Arab and international
biological associations.
Scientific and Administrative Positions:
1. After graduation, she worked as an assistant researcher
in Baghdad University from 1975 1976.
2. She worked as an assistant researcher at the University
of Missouri in America from 1981 1983 while studying for
her Ph.D.
3. Teacher at the College of Science/ Baghdad University
from 1983 1991during which she earned the title Assistant
Professor.
4. Teacher at the College of Medicine/ Saddam University
from 1991- 1994 during which she earned the title of Professor.
5. Dean of the Women's Educational College in Baghdad
University from 1993 1995.
6. Dean of the College of Science/ Baghdad University from
1995 1997.
7. A member dedicated to the Iraqi Scientific Society from
1996 until now.
The American Occupation Forces detained Dr. Huda Ammash on
April 25, 2003. During this very time, the American
Occupation Forces were claiming that Dr. Huda Ammash had
fled to Syria. Their blatant lies were exposed after some
international news networks spread reports of her detention
which forced the Occupation Forces, on May 5, 2003, to admit
that they had her under detention.
Under the pressure of international humanitarian and
academic societies, the American Forces in Baghdad claimed
that she had been released. This lie was uncovered when news
networks went to her home for an interview. The American
Occupation Forces were forced to admit that they had lied
once again and that Dr. Huda was still under detention.
Dr. Huda Saleh Mahdi Ammash never did research, at any
stage, on weapons of any type and none of her research
papers were ever put to such a use. All her scientific
research is published and she was promoted due to this
published research. She attended many international and
Arabic scientific conferences with her research.
Scientific and academic societies all over Iraq, the Arab
world, and internationally know that the reason behind Dr.
Huda Ammash's detention was that she exposed the criminal
use of weapons by the Americans during the 1991 war on Iraq
up until now. These weapons include Depleted Uranium (DU),
biological, chemical and other electro-radioactive weapons.
She published a book which proved that the weapons used by
the Americans during the 1991 Gulf War were responsible for
the rise in cancer rates in the south of Iraq and that is
why her detention is simply retaliation for exposing them.
Dr. Huda Saleh Mahdi Ammash is currently detained under
inhumane conditions in spite of the fact that she has cancer
and was under medical treatment during the time of her
detention.
The Occupation Forces have detained more than 15,000 Iraqis
without accusation, and they are subjected to the ugliest
forms of torture under almost unbelievable, inhumane conditions.
We cry out to every Muslim, Arab and live conscience to
stand by Dr. Huda Ammash and the other detainees and ask
international organizations to step in immediately and stop
these horrible crimes and to call for the detainees to be
freed. Silence on this issue means that every researcher or
scientist, Arab or Muslim, and every person who defends
their freedom, will be exposed to the same fate as the
Iraqis should they attempt to defend their people, and their
families, under occupation.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?freehuda
Sign the Petition
http://www.petitiononline.com/freehuda/petition-sign.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
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/
*****************************************************************
39 [shundahaialerts] Huntsman Executive Order Action!
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 14:46:54 -0800
Happy New Year Everyone!
As you may know, Governor Huntsman's Inauguration is today, and he will
then have the power to issue an Executive Order to kill the Class B&C
radioactive waste license that was issued to Envirocare. Please help us
make this a priority for his new administration by taking the following
action:
Call Governor Huntsman at (801) 538-1000 and ask him to issue an Executive
Order to kill the Class B&C radioactive waste license that was issued to
Envirocare.
How the Executive Order works:
The license that was issued to Envirocare states, "If either the Utah
legislature or Governor do not approve the facility to receive Class B and
C low-level radioactive waste, this license is immediately terminated."
Therefore, Huntsman could write a letter to state regulators, state his
opposition to the license, sign it, and it would terminate the license.
From there, we will be working to get the legislature to pass a ban so
that we don't have to worry about other companies applying for a license to
take hotter waste, like we've just seen Charles Judd announce his intention
to do (Judd is the former President of Envirocare and has started his own
company, Cedar Mountain, to take hotter waste even though he swore he
wouldn't pursue Class B&C radioactive waste).
Thanks for your help.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SHUNDAHAI NETWORK--Dedicated to Breaking the Nuclear Chain
Shundahai is a Newe (Western Shoshone) word meaning "Peace and Harmony
with all Creation"
Shundahai Network
PO Box 1115
Salt Lake City, UT 84110
Office: 801.533.0128
Fax: 801.533.0129
mailto:Shundahai@shundahai.org
http://www.Shundahai.org
========================================================
It's in our back yard... it's in our front yard. This nuclear contamination
is shortening all life. We are going to have to unite as a people and say
no more! We, the people, are going to have to put our thoughts together to
save our planet here. We only have One Water...One Air...One Mother Earth."
Corbin Harney -Newe (Western Shoshone) Spiritual leader, Founder & Chairman
of the Board of The Shundahai Network
|<>|<>|<>|<>|<>|<>|<>|<>|<>|<>|<>|<
Shundahai Network Action Alerts
You have received this e-mail because you either signed up on the Shundahai
Network list, or are considered someone who is interested in these types of
issues.
If you would like to be removed from this list, please send an e-mail to
nationaloutreach@shundahai.org with the word "Remove" in the subject line.
IF you were forwarded this email by a friend and would like to sign up to
this list to receive monthly updates please reply to
nationaloutreach@shundahai.org with "Subscribe Action Alerts" in the
subject heading.
|<>|<>|<>|<>|<>|<>|<>|<>|<>|<>|<>|<
*****************************************************************
40 Patent Examiner Comments on the Roy Process Invention
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 14:46:58 -0800
Patent Examiner Comments on the Roy Process Invention
http://fredtalk.fredericksburg.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=604817&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=2&fpart=1
Re: Yucca Mt. Is Not The Answer for Nuclear Waste
As a patent examiner, the explanation as to why the Roy process was not
patented makes perfect sense and is not paranoid at all. There is no reason
to get a patent unless you have the money to defend it in court. Large
corporations are notorious for stealing them. Also, patent applications in
1979 were held confidential until they were issued as patents. The inventor
requiring a non-disclosure agreement of a corporation to view the
application is also perfectly reasonable. It is niave to believe that
Reagan was not encouraged by large corporations to change the law regarding
acceptable nuclear waste disposal methods to benefit them in order to
squash any new method like the Roy process. These kinds of things happen
all the time.
As to the merits of the Roy process, it seems to me on it's face to have
potential to change nuclear waste into something less dangerous. I don't
know enough about nuclear physics to really give an detailed response, but
I do know that nuclear accelerators do change atomic structure and that
bombarding nuclear waste would certainly change it into something else.
Roy Process web
site:
http://members.cox.net/theroyprocess
(Posted for educational and research purposes only, in accordance with
Title 17 U.S.C. section 107) *
*****************************************************************
41 NRC: RIN 3150-AG71 Withdrawal of transpo reg
FR Doc 05-25
[Federal Register: January 4, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 2)]
[Proposed Rules] [Page 312-317] From the Federal Register Online
via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr04ja05-20]
Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material; Withdrawal
of Subpart I AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule: withdrawal.
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is withdrawing a
portion of a proposed rule (Subpart I, April 30, 2002; 67 FR
21390) that would have allowed certificate holders for
dual-purpose (storage and transport) spent fuel casks, designated
as Type B(DP) packages, to make certain design changes to the
transportation package without prior NRC approval. The NRC is
taking this action because it has received significant comments
regarding the cost and complexity to implement the proposed
change authority rule.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neelam Bhalla, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6843,
e-mail
nxb@nrc.gov [ nxb@nrc.gov] .
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 30, 2002 (67 FR 21390), the
NRC published in the Federal Register a proposed rule amending
NRC's regulations on packaging and transporting radioactive
materials to make the regulations compatible with the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) standards.
The proposed final rule also proposed changes in fissile material
exemption requirements to address the unintended economic impact
of NRC's emergency final rule entitled, ``Fissile Material
Shipments and Exemptions'' and addressed a petition for
rulemaking (PRM-73-12) submitted by International Energy
Consultants, Inc. The Commission also identified eight additional
issues for consideration in the 10 CFR Part 71 rulemaking
process. One of these NRC-initiated issues was Issue 15, adoption
of change authority for dual-purpose package certificate holders.
The proposed rule addressing this issue, 10 CFR Subpart I--
Application for Type B(DP) Package Approval, would have created a
new type of package certification, Type B(DP). The proposed
Subpart I would also have authorized holders of Type B(DP)
certificates to make changes to the package design and procedures
without NRC approval under certain conditions.
NRC received substantial comments on the proposed rule, including
numerous comments on the proposed Subpart I. The comments on the
proposed Subpart I are presented below, with NRC's responses. On
January 26, 2004 (69 FR 3698), the NRC published in the Federal
Register a final rule amending 10 CFR Part 71. In that final
rule, the Commission did not reach a final decision on the issue
of change authority for dual-purpose package certificate holders.
The NRC determined that implementation of the proposed change
authority rule (Issue 15) could result in new regulatory burdens
and significant costs, and that certain changes were already
authorized under the current 10 CFR Part 71 regulations. The NRC
further stated in the Federal Register that additional
stakeholder input was needed on the values and impacts of the
change authority rule before it could decide whether to adopt a
final rule providing change authority.
Subsequently, the NRC issued a discussion paper on March 15, 2004
(69 FR 12088), to facilitate discussions of the change authority
rule and held a public workshop on April 15, 2004, with
appropriate stakeholders to discuss the same proposed rule. The
workshop transcripts are available on the NRC's public Web site
at http://www.nrc.gov
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov] , under Current
Rulemakings, Final Rules and Policy Statements, Compatibility
with IAEA Transportation Safety Standards (TS-R-1) and Other
Transportation Safety Amendments Rulemaking Text and Other
Documents (RIN 3150-AG71).
Information collected from the public workshop, as well as
written comments received from the stakeholders, were generally
against implementation of the change authority rule. The proposed
10 CFR 71.153 of Subpart I would require the applicant for a Type
B(DP) package to include two parts: (1) A current Part 71
application for a Type B(U) package; and (2) the additional
information specifically required for the Type B(DP) packages,
including, among other things, a safety analysis report (SAR)
that provides an analysis of potential accidents, package
response to these potential accidents, and consequences to the
public.
The major concern raised by the dual-purpose cask vendors and
industry representatives is that the second SAR specified in the
proposed Subpart I would impose a substantial cost and burden on
them. Unlike current Part 71 standards for Type B(U) packages
that are fundamentally route and mode independent, transport
routes and population distributions might be needed for the
second SAR in order to evaluate potential accidents, package
response to these accidents, and consequences to the public. In
addition, the accident analyses would be more complicated than
the engineering examinations under the existing Part 71
hypothetical accident conditions. The dual-purpose cask vendors
and industry representatives believe that it could require
significant expenditures on the part of the applicant to produce
such an SAR. In light of the public comments received, the
Commission has reconsidered the need for the change authority
provided in proposed Subpart I of the proposed rule and has
determined to withdraw Subpart I of the proposed rule for the
reasons explained below.
The current Part 71 licensing process provides a framework that
allows licensees flexibility to make certain non-safety related
changes without prior NRC approval. The licensee can maximize
such flexibility by writing Safety Analysis Reports that focus on
the design features necessary to meet the regulatory requirements
of Part 71.
Typically, the NRC Certificate of Compliance (CoC) references
design drawings, specification of the authorized contents,
operating procedures, and maintenance commitments. These drawings
and documents identify the design and operational features that
are important for the safe performance of the package under
normal and accident conditions. Therefore, the drawings and
documents need to be of sufficient detail to identify the package
accurately and to provide
[[Page 313]] an adequate basis for its evaluation. However, when
licensees include features that do not contribute to the ability
of the package to meet the performance standards in Part 71 in
drawings and documents, the licensees limit their flexibility to
make changes without prior NRC approval. Furthermore, experience
from the stakeholders has indicated that many changes made to a
dual-purpose cask under the provisions of Sec. 72.48, may also
be made without prior NRC approval in the current regulatory
structure of Part 71, without explicit change authority.
Implementation of the change authority in the proposed rule, on
the other hand, would result in new regulatory burdens and
significant costs for both stakeholders and NRC without a
commensurate potential benefit. The proposed rule would require
the applicant to: perform an independent analysis of potential
transportation accidents specific to that design and plans for
use; project package responses to ``real world'' transportation
accidents; and determine the consequences to the public from such
accidents. It would also require the applicant to perform a
documented evaluation to demonstrate that ``changes'' would not
result in the increase of frequency and consequences of potential
``real world'' transportation accidents or the likelihood and
consequences of a malfunction of structures, systems, and
components (SSCs) important to safety; or raise the possibility
of an unevaluated accident or malfunction. Consequently, the
applicant would need information such as the transport routes and
population distributions along the transportation routes on which
a specific design is intended to be used. Since such information
is not readily available, it could require significant
expenditures and efforts on the part of the applicant to produce
such information. Furthermore, as part of the implementation of
the proposed Subpart I, NRC would have to expend significant
resources to develop guidance documents on accident analyses,
SSCs important to safety, the change process, and reviews of
methodologies used in the design bases. Additionally, the staff
resources needed to review an application under the proposed
Subpart I would likely increase significantly with the need to
perform reviews and document staff findings in the Safety
Evaluation Report (SER) for these additional items.
Public Comments on the Change Authority of 10 CFR Part 71 Public
Comments on the Proposed Rule, April 30, 2002. (Prior to the
April 15, 2004 Meeting/Workshop) Issue 15. Change Authority for
Dual-Purpose Package Certificate Holders The following comments
were submitted before the discussion paper that was issued on
March 15, 2004 (69 FR 12088), and the public workshop that was
held on April 15, 2004. Therefore, these commenters did not have
the benefit of the additional information that was gathered in
the discussion paper and the public workshop.
Comment. One commenter opposed NRC's proposal to ``harmonize''
transport and storage of spent nuclear fuel and fissile materials
with ``a watered down international standard.'' The commenter
said that the Type B(DP) package as proposed does not provide an
adequate level of public protection from radiation hazards.
Response. The NRC acknowledges the commenter's opposition to the
proposed rule change. The NRC has decided to withdraw proposed
Subpart I for the reasons explained above.
Comment. An industry representative voiced support for the change
authority that was included in the proposed rule. The commenter
added that the quality assurance programs developed under Part 71
were equivalent in effectiveness and caliber to the programs
developed under Part 72.
Five commenters expressed their support for the NRC's proposal,
but requested that the change authorization process be extended
to all packages licensed under Part 71. Two of these commenters
suggested reasons why licensees should be allowed to make minor
changes independent of the CoC holders.
Another commenter stated that the changes allowed for shipping
packages licensed under Part 72 should also be allowed for those
under Part 71.
Response. As previously discussed, the proposed change is not
being implemented for either dual purpose casks or for other
transportation casks.
Comment. Seven commenters expressed disapproval of the proposed
change authority for dual purpose casks. One commenter stated
that even ``minor'' design changes made by licensees and shippers
could impact the safety of casks and that all changes should be
subject to full NRC review. One commenter suggested that there
would not be sufficient experience based on the part of the CoC
holders to implement the responsibility effectively, and another
commenter suggested that the rule lacked specificity for adequate
implementation and that the rule change would be more effective
if each design change were subject to NRC independent inspection.
One commenter asserted that the public has a right to know if
design changes are being made.
Response. The proposed change process is not being implemented
for the reasons previously explained.
Comment. One commenter expressed concern that transporting dual-
purpose containers is going to be complicated, especially in
instances when there is no available rail access.
Response. The NRC notes that this comment is beyond the scope of
this rulemaking.
Comment. Three commenters requested clarifications on various
aspects of the proposed change authority. One of these commenters
asked for clarification on what is meant by ``minimal changes''
with potential safety consequences. The commenter also asked that
NRC include examples as well as seek, and consider, input from
State regulatory agencies when amending certificates of
compliance.
Another commenter wanted to know if a certificate holder
proposing a minor change would still have to check with the NRC
to see if the change was permissible under the proposed change
authority. The commenter wanted to know if NRC would be notified
before the changes are made. The commenter requested
clarification of the procedure for changes under the proposed
change authority. The commenter also requested a more detailed
explanation of what constitutes a minor design change with no
safety significance.
The last commenter wanted to know what types of changes could be
made to dual-purpose spent nuclear fuel casks intended for
domestic transport. This point was echoed by the first commenter
who recommended that NRC establish guidance for determining when
a design or procedural change that enhances one cask function
might compromise the effectiveness of the other. NRC should
ensure that the interrelationship between the storage and
transportation effects of cask changes are considered during the
review of certificate amendment requests. Furthermore, the first
commenter stated that NRC should consider issuing a single
certificate of compliance instead of two.
Response. The proposed change process is not being implemented
for the reasons previously explained.
[[Page 314]] Comment. One commenter noted that the eight criteria
used to determine if changes require NRC prior approval were
extracted verbatim from Parts 50 and 72 and placed into Part 71.
The commenter suggested that these criteria be customized before
inclusion in Part 71.
Response. The eight criteria used to determine if changes require
prior NRC approval are effectively the same as those included in
Parts 50 and 72. This motivated the staff to reevaluate how the
proposed change process could be implemented and led to the
determination that the proposed change process should not be
added by this rulemaking as previously discussed.
Comment. One commenter noted that a large number of highly
radioactive shipments could take place in dual-purpose containers
and that these shipments could be destined for a repository. The
commenter explained that even minor design changes would affect
waste acceptance at the repository.
Response. This comment deals with detailed transportation and
storage plans/designs that will need to be developed by the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) in its effort to design, construct,
and operate a proposed high level waste repository site and is
beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
Comment. One commenter expressed support for the design change
authority being provided to CoC holders but recommended that the
ability to make changes to the transportation design aspects of a
dual- purpose package be provided to licensees who use the casks
as well. The basis for this recommendation is that the change
process included in Part 72 for storage facilities or casks
allows licensees to make changes to the storage design without
prior NRC approval subject to certain codified tests. Another
commenter was concerned that the proposed revisions to change
authority would hinder the ability of Part 72 general and
specific licensees to effectively manage and control their Dry
Cask Storage Program and ensure that changes made in accordance
with Part 72 do not impact the Part 71 certification of spent
fuel casks.
Response. The proposed change process is not being implemented
for the reasons previously explained.
Comment. Three commenters expressed support for the proposed
change authority. One of these commenters asserted that allowing
the change authority would allow for more attention to more
significant safety issues.
Response. These three commenters did not provide a basis for
their support of the proposed rule. The comments did not have the
benefit of the additional information in the discussion paper
that clarified NRC's view on the proposed rule and the April 15,
2004 workshop discussions. Although these three comments were in
support of the proposed change authority, there were also
significant concerns raised as indicated in response to other
comments. The NRC staff considered all the comments and for the
reasons described above, NRC determined that the proposed change
process should not be implemented in this rulemaking. The NRC
does not agree that the proposed change authority would have
resulted in more attention to significant safety issues because
even if this proposal were finalized, the existing standards of
Part 71 would still have been required to be demonstrated.
Comment. Two commenters suggested improvements on the procedures
of the change authority. One stated that the two-year submittal
date for application renewal is too long and instead suggested a
30-day requirement. The other commenter stated that the proposed
Sec. 71.175(d) change reporting requirements need to allow for a
single report to be filed by dual-purpose CoC holders to comply
with the requirements of Parts 71 and 72, to avoid unnecessary
duplication of reports. Both stated that the proposed submittal
date of two years before expiration for the renewal of a CoC or
QA program is burdensome and should have a submittal date of only
30 days before expiration, as is required under Part 72. One
commenter suggested that a CoC holder should be permitted to
submit [change process implementation summary] report for both
Part 71 and Part 72 designs as one package instead of having to
provide two separate reports.
Response. The NRC has chosen not to include the proposed change
process in the final rule for the reasons previously explained.
Comment. One commenter discussed 71/72 SAR's (Safety Analysis
Reports) for the change authority. The commenter stated that a
single 71/72 SAR for generally certified dual-purpose systems
should also be permitted as an option for CoC holders. The
commenter suggested that the rule language should include
provisions for submitting updated transportation Final Safety
Analysis Reports (FSARs) for casks already certified and having
an approved SAR. The commenter suggested that an FSAR Rev. 0 be
submitted to replace the last approved transportation SAR within
two years of the effective date of the final rule, consistent
with the proposed Sec. 71.177(c)(6). The commenter stated that
the requirement in proposed Sec. 71.177(c)(7) for an FSAR update
to be submitted within 90 days of issuance of an amendment of the
CoC is unnecessary and inconsistent with the requirements under
Part 72 for the dual-purpose spent fuel storage casks. The
commenter stated that this creates an unnecessary administrative
burden on CoC holders by requiring extra FSAR updates. The
commenter said that this portion of the proposed rule should be
deleted.
Response. Regarding the suggestion to permit the submittal of a
single SAR for reflecting both the transportation and storage
design for a dual-purpose cask, the NRC staff notes that the SAR
submittal request is now moot based on the final rule language.
The NRC staff notes that because Subpart I is being eliminated
from the final rulemaking, the comment regarding the addition of
a provision in the rule language for submittal of SAR updates for
those transportation casks already certified is not applicable.
The last comment regarding the requirement for the submittal of
an updated FSAR within 90 days of an amendment to the
transportation certificate of compliance is not applicable.
Comment. One commenter expressed a number of concerns about the
proposed change process for dual purpose casks. The commenter
questioned the NRC position that the change process be
implemented by the CoC holder while the licensee would be most
familiar with details such as site-specific parameters affecting
preparation, loading, and shipment of Type B(DP) packages. The
commenter also noted that it has been unable to convince NRC that
the level of required detail in the FSAR is excessive and would,
therefore, require excessive evaluations with procedure changes
that could only be addressed by the CoC holder rather than the
licensee who is implementing detailed procedures. The commenter
added that industry experience with storage procedures clearly
demonstrates that the proposed limitation on procedure evaluation
against the Part 71 FSAR by the licensee is unworkable.
Response. The proposed change process is not being implemented
for the reasons previously explained.
[[Page 315]] Public Comments from Meeting/Workshop April 15, 2004
Comment. One commenter noted that changes can be made under the
current Part 71, without coming to the NRC for approval if the
changes do not affect the drawings and contents listed in the
certificate. Consequently, the commenter suggested that making
intelligent SAR drawings and operations chapters appears to be a
much better path for going forward than the proposed change
authority of Part 71. The commenter also noted that the change
authority for Type B(DP) packages included in the proposed
Subpart I would add a substantial amount of work to a cask
designer and license holder without a commensurate potential
benefit. The commenter pointed out that many users of Part 72
products wait until the last minute to buy their products and are
under the gun to get them loaded. Furthermore, Part 72 amendment
is a rulemaking process that takes a long time. Therefore, change
authority is essential for Part 72. The commenter suggested that
time is not an issue with Part 71 changes at the present time, or
in the near future, because of the lack of activities in spent
fuel transportation.
Thus, there is time to deal with any discrepancies in the
transport certificates that the licensees pick up either in the
course of design changes or manufacturing.
Response. NRC acknowledges the commenter's opinion about the
proposed change authority of Part 71 which provides support for
the NRC's decision to withdraw the proposed Subpart I.
Comment. Four commenters voiced their support for the concept of
change authority. Two commenters suggested that the change
authorization process be extended to all packages licensed under
Part 71. One commenter, who is an industry representative,
suggested that the change authority should be based on existing
Part 71 criteria rather than on a new supplemental set of Part 71
criteria. In a subsequent letter, dated April 30, 2004, the
industry representative informed NRC that the industry does not
endorse NRC's proposed change process for Part 71 because the
limited change ability, and the required additional FSAR, as
included in the proposed Subpart I, would add significant cost
and very little benefit to the industry.
The industry representative encouraged NRC to develop a change
process for Part 71 that is based on the existing regulatory
safety criteria of Part 71 and offered to work with NRC
cooperatively, for such an effort.
Response. NRC acknowledges the commenter's support for the
concept of change authority; however, the proposed change process
is not being implemented as described above either for
dual-purpose casks or for other transportation casks.
Comment. One commenter voiced support for the cask-specific,
mode- specific, and route-specific approach to safety analysis
included in the proposed Subpart I. The commenter noted that the
analysis is presently one-sided, for dual-purpose casks, because
licensees are required to consider all potential accidents and
their consequences for storage; however, the likelihood and
consequences are not considered for transportation. The commenter
viewed the proposed Subpart I, Sec. 71.153, which requires a
probabilistic risk analysis for transportation, to be the
instrument to correct this imbalance.
The commenter suggested that this approach would not only be
extremely useful for emergency planning purposes, but also would
be helpful in avoiding populated areas, tunnels, high bridges,
routes with high accident rates, etc., or to demonstrate that
dual-purpose casks can withstand potential accidents along these
routes. The commenter further suggested that dual-purpose casks
certified as a result of this approach would greatly enhance
public confidence in the nuclear industry which, in turn, would
also benefit the DOE as the owners and/ or shippers of these
casks to Yucca Mountain.
Response. NRC acknowledges the commenter's support for the
proposed change authority of Part 71 and understands that an
independent accident analysis specific to designs could have
public-confidence benefits. However, NRC disagrees with the
commenter that the analysis is one-sided for dual-purpose casks.
Dual-purpose casks must also meet performance requirements
specified in Part 71 for packaging and transportation of
radioactive material. Among the performance requirements,
dual-purpose casks must be capable of withstanding the mechanical
and thermal loading imposed by normal and accident conditions and
still meet specified acceptance criteria. These conditions have
been internationally accepted and have been shown to encompass
spent fuel casks performance in severe accidents. The safety
record associated with Part 71 for the domestic transportation of
spent fuel is exemplary--approximately 1,300 shipments of
civilian fuel and 920,000 miles without an accidental radioactive
release.
Nonetheless, NRC continually examines the transportation safety
programs. Furthermore, the Type B(DP) package approval in the
proposed rule presented only an option for transportation. That
is, other Type B packages would still be permitted for spent fuel
transportation, and those packages would not require the mode and
route specific accident analysis in proposed Subpart I. As for
comments regarding emergency planning and avoiding populated
areas, tunnels, high bridges, routes with high accident rates,
etc., the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulates
routing for hazardous material transportation, including
radioactive materials.
Comment. One commenter requested that the decision for the final
rule regarding Part 71 change authority for dual-purpose package
certificate holders be delayed for a period of six to nine
months. The commenter cited the likely influences, regarding the
cask selection choices, by: (1) The DOE Yucca Mountain
transportation plan; (2) final status of the license for the
Private Fuel Storage facility in Utah; and (3) the staff
recommendations regarding the NRC package performance study
(PPS), as reasons for the request.
Response. NRC acknowledges the request for delaying the final
rule regarding the change authority of Part 71; however,
potential cask selection choices would not impact the
Commission's decision to withdraw the proposed rule.
Comment. One commenter wanted to know if all dual-purpose casks
have to have a Type B(DP) approval, or whether they still can get
a Type B(U) approval? The commenter also wanted to know if
someone does get a Type B(DP) approval, could another person with
basically the same design get a Type B(U) approval? Response. No
responses to the commenters questions are needed given NRC's
decision to withdraw the Type B(DP) approval process.
Comment. Two commenters noted that there is a great deal of
flexibility in the current Part 71 and wondered if NRC is
planning to put out additional guidance to alert the designers to
the flexibility that is available.
Response. NRC acknowledges the commenters' recommendation
regarding the current flexibility in Part 71 and agrees with the
potential benefit of guidance on flexibility and making changes
for Type B packages under Part 71. NRC understands that it would
be helpful to describe and articulate the way that applications
should be prepared to allow this flexibility. This includes
identifying areas of flexibility,
[[Page 316]] the kinds of things that are flexible, where we have
seen problems, and where there are areas of over-commitment in
the applications.
Although no decision has been made on the method of communication
to be used to inform the stakeholders about the flexibility that
is currently available under Part 71, the staff would like to
point out that several existing documents provide some of this
guidance. Regulatory Guide 7.9, ``Standard Format and Content of
Part 71 Applications for Approval of Packaging for Radioactive
Material,'' NUREG/CR-5502, ``Engineering Drawings for 10 CFR Part
71 Package Approvals,'' and NUREG/CR-4775, ``Guide for Preparing
Operating Procedures for Shipping Packages,'' are three examples
that provide guidelines for preparing applications for package
approval under the current Part 71.
Comment. One commenter expressed concern that having to do a
second safety analysis report, as proposed in Subpart I, to set
up a whole set of criteria and identify another set of accident
scenarios, probabilities, and consequence analyses, etc., is
going to be very burdensome on the front end. The commenter
cautioned that a lot more questions will be raised, rather than
answered, if the industry goes down the path of having everyone
develop their own accident scenarios, probabilities, and
consequence assessments. The commenter suggested that the cost
associated with doing a second SAR may be more expensive than
doing an SAR under the current Part 71, because the regulations
under the current Part 71 are very well defined and the industry
knows exactly what it has to address. The commenter further
suggested that it will take a lot of license amendments, under
the current Part 71, to get a payback on the additional cost for
second SAR approval.
Response. NRC acknowledges the commenter's information about
potential burdens and costs that the proposed rule could impose
on stakeholders.
Comment. One commenter suggested that the change authority
included in the proposed Subpart I would not benefit existing
packages; however, it might benefit new applications because they
can build in enough flexibility in the drawings of the new
applications. The commenter also called for an industry forum to
develop a set of accident scenarios that will be binding for
everybody.
Response. The NRC has decided to withdraw the proposed rule for
the reasons previously explained.
Comment. Two commenters noted that, based on their respective
experience in Part 72, the percentage of changes made, under Sec.
72.48, that require a corresponding change to the Part 71
Certificate of Compliance, will be very low.
Response. NRC acknowledges the commenter's experience about
changes that were made, under Sec. 72.48, for dual-purpose
casks, that would still require a Part 71 Certificate amendment.
Comment. One commenter wanted to know whether changes can be
made, under the regular Part 71 approval, without coming to NRC
for amendments, if the same changes were first made under the
change authority of Part 71, for Type (DP) packages.
Response. This comment is now moot, given NRC's decision to
withdraw the proposed Subpart I.
Comment. One commenter used an example of minor design change to
illustrate what would happen under the current Part 71 and what
it might look like under the proposed Subpart I. Based on the
scenario discussed, the commenter predicted that no one will be
using the proposed Subpart I because a minor design change does
not appear be a particularly time-consuming or costly operation
under the current Part 71, as compared to the proposed Subpart I.
Response. NRC acknowledges the comparison about making design
changes under the current Part 71, and the proposed Subpart I.
Comment. One commenter suggested that a well developed full-scale
cask testing program would address cask performance issues and
eliminates the need to do a very detailed SAR, as proposed in
Subpart I.
Response. NRC acknowledges the recommendation of using full-scale
tests for certification, however, Part 71 does not require
full-scale tests for certification. It is the applicant's
decision as to whether to use full-scale tests, scale model
tests, or analyses, for certification. Therefore, this comment is
beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
Comment. One commenter wanted to know whether separate
certificates are required for a common design with different
sizes and weights.
Response. Under the current Part 71, variations in design like
that are handled under a single certificate. They would be
evaluated by looking at bounding configurations.
Comment. Four commenters suggested that the proposed Subpart I
will not work unless NRC were to provide detailed guidance,
developed in consultation with affected stakeholders, on the
methods, data, and assumptions to be used in such safety
analyses. NRC should not expect individual applicants to have to
take that responsibility. One commenter suggested the NRC Modal
Study and another suggested NUREG/CR 6672, ``Reexamination of
Spent Fuel Shipment Risk Estimates,'' as good representative
models of the types of accident analyses that the applicants may
want to consider. One commenter cautioned that the standardized
accident analysis may not be applicable to an applicant who only
uses casks for localized shipments.
Response. NRC understands that it is ineffective, inefficient,
and possibly confusing to have many different groups and entities
creating accident analyses, predicting transport accident
probabilities for individual designs. This supports NRC's
decision to withdraw the proposed Subpart I.
Comment. Two commenters noted that the change authority would not
benefit them during the next few years because the spent fuel
transportation program is not active at the present time nor
expected to be, in the near future. Consequently, most of the
current Part 71 amendment requests, rather than dealing with
design changes, are dealing with upgrade contents and adding
contents to the existing packages, which would not be benefitted
by the change authority.
Response. NRC acknowledges the commenter's opinion that the
proposed change authority of Subpart I lacked near-term benefit.
Comment. One commenter, associated with several utilities that
store fuel in dry casks at this time, expressed disapproval of
paying for the implementation of the change authority without
seeing any benefit to the utilities. The same commenter also
questioned about paying for the implementation of the change
authority while the benefit goes to the public relations for
Yucca Mountain Project, as suggested by another commenter.
Response. No response to the commenter is needed, given NRC's
decision to withdraw the proposed Subpart I.
Comment. One commenter noted that the greatest cost for
preparation of a SAR associated with the proposed Subpart I would
likely occur for the first cask analyzed under the new
requirements. The commenter suggested that such cost might
appropriately be borne by NRC as part of the PPS. The commenter
also suggested that, for those casks to be used for shipments to
Yucca Mountain, the cost might appropriately be borne by DOE.
Response. No response to the commenter is needed, given NRC's
[[Page 317]] decision to withdraw the proposed Subpart I.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of December, 2004.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-25 Filed 1-3-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
42 Bradenton Herald: Three found positive in Tallevast tests
| 01/04/2005 |
Manatee County is testing for exposure to beryllium, a toxic
metal
DONNA WRIGHT
Herald Staff Writer
Three of the 94 people tested for beryllium sensitivity in
December have positive results, Manatee County Health Department
officials reported Monday.
A positive result means the body has developed an allergic
reaction to the toxic metal, according to beryllium experts.
That allergic reaction can lead to a chronic and severe lung
disease caused by exposure to beryllium dust, experts say.
One person had borderline test results for the allergic reaction,
said Dr. Gladys Branic, Manatee's health department director.
One other person had an uninterpretable result, meaning the test
was neither normal nor abnormal, Branic said.
Both the borderline test and the uninterpretable test will be
repeated, Branic said.
Information was not released on the breakdown of how many of the
people tested were workers or residents.
The beryllium sensitivity testing program is underwritten by a
$60,000 county grant to the health department. The blood tests
could indicate if former Loral American Beryllium Co. workers who
are current Manatee County residents were made sick because of
their exposure to beryllium dust.
Tallevast residents who lived within one quarter-mile of the
Tallevast plant also are eligible for the test.
The health department will hold a second round of testing by
appointment only.
Branic's staff drew blood from 94 workers and residents during
the first round of testing Dec. 16.
Those blood samples were sent to National Jewish Medical and
Research Center in Denver for analysis.
Exposure to beryllium causes lung disease in 2 percent to 6
percent of all workers in industries where beryllium fumes or
dust are generated, according to the National Jewish Center Web
site. Certain types of jobs, such as precision machining, have
been associated with disease rates as high as 16 percent,
beryllium experts say.
Once a person has been exposed to beryllium dust, he or she
carries a lifetime risk of developing beryllium disease, even if
they tested normal for beryllium sensitization at one time,
according to experts at National Jewish.
Branic said those residents and workers whose test results were
normal have been advised to repeat the test within three to five
years because of their history of exposure to beryllium dust.
Wanda Washington, vice president of the Tallevast residents
advocacy group FOCUS, said she talked to some of the people who
received positive or inconclusive test results and that they were
stunned by the news.
Washington said she was going to the homes of some of the
families Monday night to try to comfort them.
American Beryllium workers machined the exotic metal during the
past four decades to create parts for nuclear weapons and missile
guidance systems for the U.S. government.
The plant closed in 1996 when it was sold to Lockheed Martin
Corp.
Workers are eligible for a federal medical benefits program and
lump sum compensation if they become sick from beryllium dust
exposure.
The blood test is required for most workers filing claims with
the U.S. Department of Labor.
BERYLLIUM SENSITIVITY TESTS
Manatee County Health Department will draw blood samples for free
beryllium sensitivity tests, by appointment only, on the
following dates.
• 7-10 a.m. Jan 19 at the Manatee County Health Department, 410
Sixth Ave. E., Bradenton. Deadline for scheduling appointments is
Jan. 14.
• 7-11 a.m. Jan. 26 at Mount Tabor Missionary Baptist Church,
1703 Tallevast Road, Tallevast. Deadline for scheduling
appointments is Jan. 21.
To schedule an appointment call Kris Pepper, 748-0747, ext. 1202.
Eligibility is restricted to Manatee County residents who are
former Loral American Beryllium workers and their families who
lived in the same household as the workers during their
employment. Tallevast residents who lived within one quarter-mile
of the American Beryllium plant during its operation are also
eligible for the test as long as they are current Manatee County
residents.
Donna Wright, health and social services reporter, can be reached
at 745-7049 or at dwright@bradentonherald.com
[dwright@bradentonherald.com] .
*****************************************************************
43 Inyo Register: Experts: Yucca ‘backup' sites a necessity
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
Independent commission says nation also needs above-ground nuke
storage casks
By Benjamin Grove
WASHINGTON — The nation needs Yucca Mountain as part of a broad
energy strategy, including expanded nuclear power n but the
government should also construct above-ground "dry cask" waste
storage sites, a coalition of energy experts said Wednesday.
The nation needs at least two such storage sites, one on each
side of the Mississippi River to provide an "interim, backup
solution against the possibility that Yucca Mountain is further
delayed or derailed n or cannot be adequately expanded before a
further geologic repository can be ready," according to the
"Ending the Energy Stalemate" report issued by a 16-member panel
of experts from industry, environmental, academic and government
backgrounds.
It was the first time an independent commission had called for
such a proposal. A 2001 energy task force overseen by Vice
President Dick Cheney backed Yucca Mountain but not additional
above-ground sites.
The nation has put "all its eggs in one basket" in relying on
Yucca Mountain as a sole solution to high-level nuclear waste,
said John Holdren, co-chairman of the National Commission on
Energy Policy and an environmental policy professor at Harvard
University.
"It's proven technology," Holdren said of dry cask storage. "It's
not expensive. It's safe n it's even terrorist resistant."
But a high-profile nuclear industry executive was reluctant to
offer explicit support for the proposal.
After a press conference Wednesday, commission co-chairman and
Exelon Corp. chairman and CEO John Rowe said industry leaders
would be reluctant to back the commission proposal because it
might imply wavering support for Yucca.
"My company is committed to supporting the Yucca Mountain
solution," he said. But he added that the industry in general
supports any effort by the government to meet its obligation to
solving the nation's waste problem.
The nation has 103 active commercial nuclear reactors that
generate highly radioactive waste, which plants now store on
site in waste pools, and increasingly, in above-ground dry cask
containers. The containers can safely hold waste for 100 years
or more, experts say.
But Congress promised the industry it would find a permanent
solution to storing waste, and since 1987 that solution has been
the proposed underground repository at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles
northwest of Las Vegas and about 15 miles east of Death Valley
in Inyo County. The project has been plagued by controversy,
budget woes and delays, and Nevada officials have fought to kill
it.
Environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense
Council, generally oppose Yucca. The commission proposal offers
an option worth considering, said Ralph Cavanagh, senior
attorney and co-director of the defense council's energy
program, who also served as a commissioner.
"I hope that this is welcome news to Nevadans who are tired of
being the nation's dumping ground," said Cavanagh, a nuclear
energy skeptic. "Under no circumstances can you assume that
Yucca Mountain is a complete solution."
The National Energy Commission toiled for three years to
assemble a 2,700-page compilation of research and
recommendations available on CD Rom and in a 128-page report
summary.
Commissioners said they plan to advocate their recommendations
in Washington as Congress next year continues efforts to draft a
comprehensive national energy policy. Commissioners acknowledged
some of their findings are not new.
(Distributed by Scripps-McClatchy Western Service)
©2004 [pub@inyoregister.com]
*****************************************************************
44 Californian: Sen. Feinstein wants to tackle perchlorate
thecalifornian.com
Local News - Monday, January 3, 2005
Traces of rocket-fuel chemical have shown up in valley lettuce
By VICTOR CALDERON The Salinas Californian
WHAT'S NEXT
When the U.S. Senate convenes later this month, Sen. Dianne
Feinstein plans to propose legislation that would help prevent
further contamination of food and water supplies from a
rocket-fuel chemical called perchlorate.
U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein is promising to seek federal
legislation this month that would help protect the nation's food
and water supplies from perchlorate, a rocket-fuel chemical
that's been found in trace amounts in Salinas Valley lettuce.
Feinstein proposes legislation that would spend $200 million to
identify and clean up perchlorate sources and provide grants for
technologies to clean up existing contamination. She also plans
to seek a new federal limit for perchlorate in drinking water
and hold perchlorate polluters responsible for cleanup efforts.
The issue came home this fall with the revelation that surveys
conducted in 2003 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration found
extremely small amounts of the chemical in samples of green
leaf, iceberg, red leaf, and romaine lettuce. from the Salinas
Valley. Perchlorate also turned up in 350 drinking water sources
in California.
Health studies over the past decade have shown high doses of
perchlorate over a long period of time can affect the thyroid
gland's ability to make essential hormones and can lead to
thyroid gland tumors.
"It is imperative that we reduce the perchlorate in our drinking
water and protect Californians, especially pregnant women, the
unborn, infants, and young children from this threat to their
health," Feinstein said in a prepared statement.
Bob Roach, assistant Monterey County agricultural commissioner,
said he's glad to see greater attention being paid to what a
significant issue for California's ag industry.
"I support any efforts that will enhance the cleanup and give us
more information on its source," Roach said.
Just how perchlorate ended up in Salinas Valley lettuce remains
a mystery, he said.
The FDA study, released in November, found perchlorate in 90
percent of lettuce samples taken in California, Arizona, Texas,
Florida, and New Jersey and 101 of 104 samples taken in retail
stores around the country.
Last year, Feinstein was able to secure $2.775 million in
appropriations funding to research the scope of perchlorate
contamination in California and to clean up wells that have been
contaminated. She secured an additional $6.5 million in
perchlorate cleanup funding as part of the Defense Department's
appropriations bill.
Contact Victor Calderón at calderon@salinas.gannett.com.
[calderon@salinas.gannett.com]
Originally published Monday, January 3, 2005
Copyright ©2004 The Salinas Californian. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
45 Boston Globe: Opinion The enemy within
Boston.com / News /
January 3, 2005
WHEN IT comes to despoiling the environment, the Department of
Defense has the worst record of any federal agency. It promised
to turn a new leaf in 1996, when it adopted a directive
committing it to "environmental security leadership." Now it
wants to drop that policy in favor of managing its facilities
"to sustain the national defense mission." The draft of the new
directive refers to preventing pollution, but the focus is on
"mission accomplishment" and enhanced readiness.
The Pentagon's new leaf is losing its green faster than a New
England maple in October.
The proposed new directive comes on top of the Defense
Department's success at getting Congress to exempt its training
operations from the Endangered Species Act and the Marine
Mammals Protection Act. Congress went along with this even
though it had always granted case-by-case exemptions on national
security grounds. There is no record of any training operation
ever being hindered by compliance with an environmental law.
Emboldened by Congress's willingness to put military training
outside the reach of those two laws, the Pentagon is now asking
for certain activities to be exempt from provisions of the Clean
Air Act and laws governing munitions disposal and toxic wastes.
If it gets this authority, the public should be on the lookout
for more toxic waste pollution around military bases, such as
the contaminated drinking water aquifer under Cape Cod's
Massachusetts Military Reservation. The Pentagon already
controls about 140 of the nation's 1,240 toxic Superfund sites.
The 1996 directive commits the military to "protecting,
preserving, and, when required, restoring and enhancing the
quality of the environment" and "reducing risk to human health
and the environment by identifying, evaluating, and, where
necessary, remediating contamination resulting from past
activities." All of those pledges are missing from the proposed
new directive.
A spokeswoman for the Pentagon, Captain Susan Idziak, said last
week that there is no timetable for final action on the draft
directive. By Pentagon regulation, she said, the final version
would have to be approved by the secretary of defense, Donald
Rumsfeld, or his deputy.
Since 1985 the department has spent more than $25 billion on
cleanups at its bases, including some that have been closed
down. But military materials continue to be a source of
pollution. Traces of the toxic chemical perchlorate, which is in
rocket fuel, are being found in drinking water sources all over
the country, including Berkshire County. The Defense Department
should define its mission not just to protect the country
against enemy states and terrorists but also against threats to
Americans' health from its own operations. [ /] © Copyright
2005 Globe Newspaper Company. [ /] More News [Subscribe] 50%
*****************************************************************
46 North Adams Transcript: New perchlorate study results to be released
January 04, 2005 North Adams, MA
By Karen Gardner
WILLIAMSTOWN -- The Massachusetts Community Water Watch program
will release the results of a report on the state's eight
perchlorate-contaminated water systems next week in Williamstown.
One of the contaminated areas highlighted in the report is Mount
Greylock Regional High School, said Nate Stell, the group's
campus organizer, based at Clark University and Worcester State
College.
Stell said the report focuses on perchlorate contamination
throu-ghout the state, and the eight drinking water supplies
found over the past year to have been affected by the chemical.
From Williamstown to Cape Cod, "It's been found all over the
place," he said. "We're trying to raise awareness about it."
The purpose of the Williamstown press conference, slated for
Friday, Jan. 14, at 11 a.m., is to show connections between the
various perchlorate contamination in the different communities
and how each area has been affected. Perchlorate is a chemical
found in rocket fuel, and has been linked to thyroid disorders,
among other maladies.
z The site of the press conference has yet to be determined. If
not at the high school, it may take place at the town hall or the
library, said Stell.
Massachusetts Community Water Watch program is an AmeriCorps
program, financed by MASSPIRG education fund and the
Massachusetts Service Alliance. For the past six years, the
organization has focused on service and education, as well as
trying to promote community waterway stewardship.
The group's report will include findings as to the economic
impact to communities in which perchlorate was discovered, as
well as any health affects.
"The tricky thing with perchlorate is, because it's the type of
contamination that happens over a period of time, it's really
hard to say if problems people might be having are directly
caused by perchlorate," Stell said.
As part of Water Watch's sixth "Education Week," its organizers,
student volunteers and others also will travel to areas
throughout the state on Jan. 14 to instruct thousands of school
children on water quality issues.
The group will visit Berkshire County elementary schools,
including Gabriel Abbott Memorial in Florida, where volunteers
will teach and do activities with children in the classrooms.
Although last year's effort focused on mercury, this year's
focus will be directed toward general water pollutants, how they
get in the water, how they affect children, and what children can
do about the pollutants, said Stell.
Perchlorate will be one of the pollutants discussed.
"We try to get students and community members involved with
their waterways," said Stell. Although the group teaches classes
throughout the year, "This is our big, concentrated effort that
we do every year."
He said the state's Department of Environmental Protection last
year mandated that all of Massachusett's drinking water suppliers
test for perchlorate. Testing revealed eight sources contained
perchlorate, most of which were town drinking water supplies.
Before the state Department of Environmental Protection mandated
testing for perchlorate, said Stell, "No one had known that there
was any perchlorate."
He said it was not until the Environmental Protection Agency
conducted a study several years ago that people learned
consumption of perchlorate above one part per billion was unsafe.
Copyright ©1999-2004 New England Newspapers, Inc., a
*****************************************************************
47 Guardian Unlimited: Italy 'to export nuclear waste to UK'
Paul Brown and Rob Evans
Wednesday January 5, 2005
The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk]
Italy is hoping to export 99% of its nuclear waste to the UK
after public demonstrations made it impossible to find a suitable
site on Italian soil.
The Italian government has 235 tonnes of spent fuel from the
country's long decommissioned reactors in deteriorating stores.
Contracts worth £200m are on offer to British Nuclear Fuels
(BNFL) at Cumbria to reprocess the nuclear fuel, provided the UK
keeps the waste and the plutonium and uranium that would be
recovered. The Italian nuclear industry was shut down after the
Chernobyl disaster.
The Department of Trade and Industry cleared the way for the
import of nuclear fuel and retention of overseas nuclear waste in
Britain a week before Christmas, when rules insisting that waste
should be returned to the country of origin were relaxed.
The government said retaining waste from half a dozen customers
of BNFL would increase the revenue of the state-owned company by
£680m, and this would go towards the £2bn a year clean-up costs.
Any plan to import waste from Italy is bound to be controversial
because the UK has failed to find its own depository for waste
and is not expected to have one for another 30 years. The
government says that importing spent fuel for reprocessing and
keeping the waste only adds a few per cent to the UK's waste that
is already stored at sites round the country.
The department said yesterday that it had had no formal contact
with the Italians over the proposed contract. A public
consultation would be held before any new contracts were signed,
and Patricia Hewitt, the trade and industry secretary, would make
a final decision.
BNFL, which has told local groups in Cumbria that it had informal
talks with the Italians in the summer, said yesterday that there
had been no formal approach.
A decree allowing the export of waste was signed in Italy last
month. Sogin, the Italian government organisation charged with
dealing with the country's nuclear legacy, has said it will
approach the UK next month when the decree becomes law.
The Guardian, meanwhile, is challenging the government's refusal
to publish details of its contracts allowing Italy to send
nuclear waste to Britain.
z The DTI has claimed the information was too "sensitive" and
would embarrass the Italian government.
Now the newspaper has submitted a request under the Freedom of
Information Act which requires the DTI to respond within 20
working days.
Graphics
The Mox ships' journey around the world (pdf)
[http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2002/09
/17/nuclear_ship.pdf]
Nuclear map of Britain
US nuclear map
Useful links
British Energy [http://www.british-energy.com/]
Department of Trade and Industry [http://www.dti.gov.uk/]
British Nuclear Fuels Ltd
[http://www.bnfl.co.uk/website.nsf/default.htm]
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament [http://www.cnduk.org/]
Greenpeace [http://www.greenpeace.org/homepage/]
HSE nuclear glossary [http://www.hse.gov.uk/nsd/ilrwglos.htm]
UK atomic energy authority [http://www.ukaea.org.uk/]
National Radiological Protection Board [http://www.nrpb.org.uk/]
Friends of the Earth
[http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/climate/press_for_change/dump_nuc
lear/index.html]
World Nuclear Association [http://www.uilondon.org/]
World Nuclear Transport Institute [http://www.wnti.co.uk]
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
48 Vermont Guardian: Native American lands poisoned by military testing, reports say
January 3, 2005 Headlines |Native American lands poisoned by
DUCKWATER, NV New research in the American Sociological Review
and a related study of Department of Defense data by Indian
Country Today point to a silent nuclear ecocide on Aboriginal
lands and the systematic takeover of tribal lands for nuclear
and explosives operations conducted by the U.S. military.
In The Treadmill of Destruction: National Sacrifice Areas and
Native Americans, researchers Gregory Hooks and Chad L. Smith
review ongoing military operations on and near Indian land. DOD
data meanwhile reveals a concealed and often misleading history
of environmental impacts.
Above and underground nuclear testing has been conducted in the
heart of Shoshone and Paiute lands in Nevada. Goshute lands in
Utah and Nevada straddle the Dugway chemical warfare testing
site.
After World War II, Nellis Range, the largest gunnery range in
the world, was absorbed into Nevadas nuclear weapons complex.
Both Nellis and the nuclear test site border lands of the
Western Shoshone and Southern Paiute.
Unexploded ordnances mines, nerve gases, toxics, and explosive
shells contaminate as much as 50 million acres and have claimed
at least 65 lives.
Hooks and Smith point to the staggering health and environmental
dangers, which largely have been concealed for reasons of
national security. The expansion of military bases on and
adjacent to Indian lands is part of a deliberate and systematic
assault on Indian peoples, they write. Military contaminants are
placed in close proximity to Native American communities,
primarily in remote areas of the West.
A DOD report for Death Valley Timbasha Shoshone reveals possible
contaminated soil and groundwater and the destruction of
cultural artifacts by the China Lake Weapons Center and the
Armys Fort Irwin National Training Center. Unfortunately, there
are no DOD reports for many Indian tribes in Nevada and Utah.
The Moapa Band of Paiute were close enough for schoolchildren to
watch mushroom clouds with unprotected eyes, yet DOD has no
report on the impacts.
As a child, Phil Swain, a Moapa Paiute, watched atomic bombs
explode in the desert. It looked like a big mushroom cloud, he
recalled. The ground would settle like a big saucer. They said
it never leaked out, but it did. A lot of our people died from
cancer.
A nuclear waste storage site is under construction on Yucca
Mountain, which was secured by the Western Shoshone in the
Treaty of Ruby Valley of 1863.
Pharmaceutical lobby shuffles deck on import debate
WASHINGTON A high-powered lobbying effort by the pharmaceutical
industry, combined with a stacked task force and major financial
support for the George W. Bush presidential campaign, goes a
long way toward explaining the administrations decision to
continue blocking the importation of drugs from Canada,
according to a drug industry watchdog.
Rather than take action, as the president promised during his
re-election campaign, the administrations Drug Importation Task
Force has opted to kick the development of a safe, effective
importation program back to the Congress. But according to a
study by Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group, the task
force focused on the wrong questions and was influenced by its
ties to the drug industry.
No independent outside experts were included on the task force,
and seven of its 13 members were political appointees. In
addition, two former drug company executives hold influential
health policy positions within the administration, and 13
pharmaceutical executives and their lobbyists have raised at
least $2.2 million for Bushs two presidential campaigns.
According to lobbying disclosure records, 14 former senior
officials have passed through the federal governments revolving
door and now lobby for the prescription drug industry. At least
seven have lobbied the administration and Congress on drug
importation, records show.
Most of the necessary drug safety provisions are contained in
the Pharmaceutical Market Access and Drug Safety Act, a bill
introduced by North Dakota Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan. Thus
far, however, the administration and Republican leaders have
stymied the bills progress.
Posted January 3, 2004
The Vermont Guardian?
[http://www.vermontguardian.com/
*****************************************************************
49 Rocky Mountain News: Scientific journal says Flats cleanup not enough
By Ann Imse, Rocky Mountain News
January 4, 2005
The prestigious Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has published
activist LeRoy Moore's argument that the Rocky Flats cleanup does
not go far enough.
The journal, co-founded by Albert Einstein, has published writers
who are a who's who of nuclear weapons scientists. It gave Moore
eight pages and 20 footnotes to say the weapons plant on the
outskirts of Denver should be stripped of all contamination
caused by production at the site.
Instead, the Department of Energy is allowing low levels of
nuclear waste stuck to basement walls to be buried forever at
least six feet below the surface.
Moore, a consultant with the Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice
Center in Boulder, says the conversion of the 6,500-acre site
into a wildlife refuge is better than allowing development on
it. But the plan has allowed a lower standard of cleanup than if
people were expected to live there, he says.
He cites the DOE and scientists as recognizing that plutonium
can be lethal if as little as 1 millionth of a gram is inhaled,
and worries that hiking, biking and horseback riding on the
refuge could eventually stir up plutonium-laden dust.
Moore also fears humans will forget about the buried plutonium
at Rocky Flats long before its danger dissipates in thousands of
years.
"To allow high levels of it to remain in the site's soil, which
will likely be stirred up by humans and animals in the long
term, demonstrates a wanton disregard for the well-being of
unsuspecting future generations," he writes.
Karen Lutz, DOE spokeswoman, said in response: "This community
is getting a very safe, protective and conservative cleanup that
far exceeds what the law requires."
Rocky Flats officials say that leaving the basements buried is
safer than trying to dig them up, potentially irradiating
cleanup workers in the process.
Most contaminated material from the site is being shipped out of
state to permanent nuclear waste storage sites.
SITE MAP PHOTO REPRINTS CORRECTIONS 2004 © The E.W. Scripps
*****************************************************************
50 KTVB.COM: Delegation asks DOE to pick cleanup contractor sooner
03:21 PM MST on Monday, January 3, 2005
Associated Press
IDAHO FALLS -- Idaho wants the federal energy department to
accellerate its search for a contractor to clean up the state's
polluted national laboratory.
The U.S. Department of Energy had originally planned to announce
a contractor for the INEEL cleanup work in November. But it took
longer to write the contract than expected.
Now, it plans to announce who gets the contract next March 15th.
Idaho's U.S. congressional delegation says that the longer the
wait, the more confusion will be created for employees working at
the site near Arco.
The DOE has already announced that Battelle Energy Alliance, an
industry consortium, will take over operating the facility in
February.
But the cleanup is separate from that contract.
*****************************************************************
51 Casper Star-Tribune: Rocky Flats retaining ponds contaminated with radioactivity
Home [http://www.casperstartribune.net/] > News
cobouderjsdmz
GOLDEN, Colo. (AP) - Water in retaining ponds designed to block
water from the former Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plants from
flowing downstream is contaminated with levels of radioactivity
higher than allowed, the cleanup contractor said.
The radioactivity stems from the plutonium derivative americum
and is thought to have come from the buried remains of Building
771, where plutonium was processed into triggers for nuclear
bombs, officials at cleanup contractor Kaiser-Hill Co. said
Monday.
No water from the ponds has been released downstream on Walnut
Creek, which flows into Broomfield's Great Western Reservoir,
since the contamination was discovered in early November,
Kaiser-Hill officials said. The creek is not a direct source of
drinking water.
The ponds have a capacity of about 44 million gallons. They are
now holding about 25 million gallons and are expected to fill in
about two months, said John Rampe, a scientist with the Energy
Department, which is overseeing the site's cleanup.
No water will be released from the ponds until it meets cleanup
standards, said Steven Gunderson, the state health department's
Rocky Flats cleanup coordinator. The cleanup is scheduled to be
completed in 2006, and the site is to become a wildlife refuge.
Testing by Kaiser-Hill and the Colorado health department
revealed levels of americum about four times the limit of 0.15
picocuries per liter established in the cleanup agreement.
Traces of plutonium also were found.
According to Environmental Protection Agency estimates, the
30-year cancer risk for somebody who drinks two liters per day
of water with 0.15 picocuries per liter of radiation increases
by one per million.
Kaiser-Hill workers traced the contamination to one of six
lines draining water from an area where Building 771 once stood.
The building was considered the most dangerous in America at one
time for its extremely high radiation levels.
The contamination might have come from water sprayed to reduce
dust during demolition of Building 771 in July, said David
Shelton, Kaiser-Hill's vice president for environmental systems
and stewardship.
On Wednesday, a former FBI agent who led a raid on Rocky Flats
offices in 1989 is expected to hold a news conference to discuss
information given to a grand jury that investigated alleged
environmental crimes at the site. The agent, Jon Lipsky,
declined comment Tuesday.
Lipsky has said a citizens' group report alleging dangerous
gaps in the cleanup was correct, but he had been muzzled by the
FBI. He retired last year.
He is scheduled to appear with state Rep.-elect Wes McKinley,
D-Walsh, who was foreman of the grand jury and has fought
unsuccessfully to unseal investigation documents from its work.
The Justice Department declined to issue any indictments after
the investigation ended in 1992.
Also this week, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists published
an article by activist LeRoy Moore arguing the Rocky Flats
cleanup will leave dangerous contamination under the planned
wildlife refuge.
Moore, a consultant with the Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice
Center in Boulder, said all contamination should be removed
before the conversion to a refuge.
''To allow high levels of it to remain in the site's soil,
which will likely be stirred up by humans and animals in the
long term, demonstrates a wanton disregard for the well-being of
unsuspecting future generations,'' Moore wrote.
The Energy Department has defended the cleanup.
''This community is getting a very safe, protective and
conservative cleanup that far exceeds what the law requires,''
said agency spokeswoman Karen Lutz.
---
On the Net:
Energy Department site: http://www.rfets.gov/doe
[http://www.rfets.gov/doe]
AP-WS-01-04-05 1621EST
*****************************************************************
52 [du-list] DU in the news - 5th Jan. 05
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 14:42:17 -0800
Media Monitors Network, Tue, 04 Jan 2005 1:23 AM PST
Comparing Iraqi Victims with Victims from the Indian Ocean Tsunami (by Stan
Moore) - Media Monitors Network (MMN)
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/12337/
¨ Join the struggle to keep Media Monitors Network (MMN) on the web! ¨
Make a commitment to subscribe, donate and/or place all of your book and
other product orders from Amazon.com and others through MMN Shopping
web-site by clicking here.
SpaceDaily, Mon, 03 Jan 2005 6:44 PM PST
NUKEWARS Al-Qaida's Nuclear Ambitions Said Unattainable
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nuclear-blackmarket-04r.html
Although Osama bin Laden has received the blessing of a Saudi cleric to
acquire nuclear weapons, it will be difficult for al-Qaida to put together
a useable device, says an article published in The Washington Post Wednesday.
Sonoma Index-Tribune, Mon, 03 Jan 2005 1:13 PM PST
Letters 12.31.04
http://www.sonomanews.com/articles/2005/01/03/news/editorial_and_letters/letter06.txt
A few days ago I was approached by a young boy who was collecting items to
be sent to a relative, a soldier in Iraq, as part of a class project. In
response, I said that while I supported his being active in his class
project, I was a pacifist and didn't believe in war or violence.
----------
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.8 - Release Date: 1/3/05
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
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:
*****************************************************************