*****************************************************************
02/17/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.38
*****************************************************************
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 No New Discoveries On Iran's Nuclear Programme In Past Six Months -
2 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Urges Alliance Against U.S. 'Plots'
3 Xinhua: Russia to help Iran in peaceful using nuclear energy
4 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Warns of 'Swift Reaction' if Attacked
5 Guardian Unlimited: Russia's Nuclear Chief to Seal Iran Deal
6 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: North radio transcript puzzles analysts
7 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: Official says China has most sway with North
8 Xinhua: Official plans DPRK visit on nuclear impasse
9 Guardian Unlimited: Outgoing U.S. Ambassador Warns on N. Korea
10 Guardian Unlimited: China's Help Sought on North Korea Talks
11 US: [Bananas] ALERT: Urge Your Rep. to Sign Markey Letter on
12 US: Las Vegas SUN: Renewable energy report encouraging for Nevada
13 US: UCS: Kyoto Treaty Goes Into Effect Without U.S.
14 US: Skeptical Inquirer: Critical Thinking About Energy
15 Bellona: 60 percent of Severodvinsk shipyards’ equipment worn-out
NUCLEAR REACTORS
16 US: [NukeNet] Duke wants a new nuke
17 US: [NukeNet] Asbury Park Press article on TFP
18 Bellona: Leningrad NPP’s reactor no.3 shutdown for repairs
19 US: DesMoinesRegister.com: Alliant powers plan to sell nuclear plant
20 US: toledoblade.com: NRC plans meeting on Davis-Besse
21 US: APP.COM: Residents ask A-plant what's on their minds
22 US: TimesDaily.com Browns Ferry plant reactor back on line after bre
23 SABCnews.com: SA will not appeal nuclear plant suspension
NUCLEAR SAFETY
24 US: [du-list] Privatising nuclear clean-up risks public safety
25 [DU-WATCH] Aussies - DU doco on SBS tomorrow night
26 Interfax: Oslo hosts conference on radiation security in Russian Nor
27 AU ABC: Veterans Affairs establishes beryllium hotline.
28 US: WVLT VOLUNTEER TV Knoxville, TN: Keeping Nuclear Material Safe
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
29 UK The Times: Sellafield's problem is not with science, but with pub
30 allAfrica.com: Kenya: Lobby Demands Report On Waste Dumping
31 The Herald: Concerns for public safety raised over clean-up of nucle
32 Las Vegas SUN: Domenici urges support for Yucca
33 Las Vegas SUN: Columnist Jeff German: Feds show Nevada no quarter
34 Las Vegas SUN: Despite Yucca uncertainty, industry plans new plants
35 US: Deseret news: Matheson gets no answer on Moab tailings
36 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Hobson's choice (Envirocare)
37 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Utahns ramp up pressure to move Atlas tailing
38 TheStar.com: Council backs nuclear disposal
39 Guardian Unlimited: British Plant Can't Account for Plutonium
40 US: MSNBC: Hanford breaks ground on pilot project to glassify waste
41 US: Yankton Press & Dakotan: Nebraska N-Waste
42 US: KLAS: Clean up of Moab Uranium in Jeopardy
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
43 [NukeNet] Probe Finds Nuke Guards Mishandled Guns
44 DOE: Ridge Reservation Health Effects Subcommittee
45 Tri-City Herald: K Basin concrete likely holding
46 Tri-City Herald: IsoRay expansion temporarily stops its planned move
47 Paducah Sun: Explosions, plumes just plant training
OTHER NUCLEAR
48 [du-list] EJ Victory!!
49 [du-list] DU in the news - 17th Feb. 05
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 No New Discoveries On Iran's Nuclear Programme In Past Six Months - Iaea Chief
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:00:16 -0500
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on pascal.ctyme.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-22.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_ORG,
SPF_HELO_PASS,SP_HAM_SUPER,SUBJ_ALL_CAPS,SUBJ_HAS_UNIQ_ID,
WHITE_PHRASE autolearn=ham version=3.0.1
X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com
NO NEW DISCOVERIES ON IRAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAMME IN PAST SIX MONTHS
– IAEA CHIEF
New York, Feb 17 2005 1:00PM
As the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency prepares to assess
Iran’s compliance with its non-proliferation obligations, the agency’s
chief says there have been no discoveries in the past six months
to substantiate claims that Tehran is secretly working toward
building a nuclear bomb.
The 35-member Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy
Agency (<"http://www.iaea.org/">IAEA), at its next <"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCentre/News/2005/IAEABoardMeetings.html">meeting
starting
28 February at its Vienna headquarters, will review the latest
data on Iran’s nuclear programme after revelations in 2003
that Tehran had for many years concealed nuclear activities in breach
of its legal obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (<"http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/WMD/treaty/">NPT).
Iran has denied it is pursuing a weapons programme, insisting it
is merely seeking to produce energy. IAEA Director-General Mohamed
ElBaradei will present his latest report to the Board. At the last
meeting in November he said the Agency “is not yet in a position
to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or
activities in Iran.”
In recent interviews with United States media posted on the IAEA
web site, Mr. ElBaradei said that over the past six months there
had not been “much development, neither as a result of our inspections
or as a result of intelligence” on the Iranian issue.
“If I look at the big picture, there is no enrichment in Iran, and
this is quite satisfactory, and I hope it keeps this way until
we reach an agreement,” he added of the production of enriched uranium,
an ingredient for nuclear weapons.
He said the only way to end the crisis and avoid confrontation was
for the US to get involved in talks which Britain, France and Germany
are holding with Iran, seeking a diplomatic solution.
“I don’t think the Iranian issue will be resolved without the United
States putting fully its weight behind the Europeans,” he said.
The upcoming Board meeting will also discuss the Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea (DPRK), which last week announced that it already
had nuclear weapons and withdrew from six-party talks with
the Republic of Korea, China, Japan, the Russian Federation and
the United States seeking to end its nuclear weapons programme.
“North Korea and Iran are still the two 800-pound gorillas in the
room and not much is happening,” Mr. ElBaradei said in the interviews.
The Board will also consider Mr. ElBaradei’s appointment for a new
four-year term beginning 1 December, and the Egyptian diplomat,
who has already served two terms, said that despite reported tension
with Washington professional relations with US officials have
been good. “I would hope we would continue to cooperate no matter
what,” he added.
2005-02-17 00:00:00.000
________________
For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news
To change your profile or unsubscribe go to:
http://www.un.org/news/dh/latest/subscribe.shtml
*****************************************************************
2 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Urges Alliance Against U.S. 'Plots'
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Thursday February 17, 2005 9:46 PM
AP Photo XHS105
By NASSER KARIMI
Associated Press Writer
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran warned that any strike on its nuclear
facilities would draw a swift and crushing response and called
Thursday for an expansion of its newly emerging strategic
alliance with Syria to create a powerful united Islamic front
that could confront Washington and Israel.
Such an expansion appears unlikely to go far, because many key
Arab states - Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia - are close Washington
allies and have long been suspicious of Iran's Shiite Muslim
clerical regime.
Still, the statements were another sign of the tense situation,
coming a day after Syria and Iran declared they would form a
united front against any threats, and a mysterious explosion
near a nuclear facility in southwestern Iran that initially was
reported as a missile strike but later was attributed to
construction work on a dam.
Iran's overtures to other Muslim countries in the Mideast
reflect its concern about U.S. pressure to drop all its nuclear
ambitions. With Syria under similarly strong American scrutiny -
in its case for its role in Lebanon and as an alleged sponsor of
terrorism - the two nations are trying to diminish Washington's
efforts to isolate them.
The Bush administration has so far applied only diplomatic
pressure, but has talked tough. President Bush has labeled Iran
part of an ``axis of evil'' with North Korea and prewar Iraq.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Feb. 4 that a military
strike against Iran was ``not on the agenda at this point,'' but
Bush has said he would not rule out any option.
Bush said Thursday the United States would support Israel ``if
her security is threatened.''
Israel has warned that it may consider a pre-emptive strike
against Iranian nuclear installations along the lines of its
1981 bombing of an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor near
Baghdad. The United States accuses Iran of having a secret
program to make nuclear weapons; Iran insists its nuclear
activities are for peaceful energy purposes.
``If I was the leader of Israel and I'd listened to some of the
statements by the Iranian ayatollahs that regarded the security
of my country, I'd be concerned about Iran having a nuclear
weapon as well,'' Bush said.
Fears the United States or Israel will attack Iran or Syria
abound in the region, and Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani
was quoted Thursday by state-run radio as saying retaliation
would be harsh.
``When the Iranian nation sees our crushing response to the
enemy, it should know one of our nuclear or non-nuclear
facilities has been attacked,'' he said.
Iran's powerful former president Hashemi Rafsanjani, speaking
after meeting Syrian Prime Minister Mohammad Naji al-Otari, said
it was important to strengthen relations among Iran, Syria,
Iraq, Lebanon and other Islamic states in the region, the
official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.
Rafsanjani said the United States and Israel were trying to
create divisions among regional countries, which he said must
``stay completely vigilant vis-a-vis the U.S. and Israeli
plots.'' Rafsanjani is widely expected to run in June
presidential elections.
Iran and Syria long have maintained warm relations. Syria was
the only Arab country that remained allied to Iran during the
1980-88 war, and the two countries often coordinate on foreign
policy, especially with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict and the U.S.-led war on Iraq.
``The Iranian-Syrian common front is not a new phenomenon. Iran
and Syria have been strategic allies for the past 2 decades.
What was declared Wednesday was insistence on more coordination
and cooperation between the two in the face of growing U.S.
hostility,'' said Mohammad Sadeq al-Hosseini, an Iranian expert
on Arab affairs.
``The declaration may lead to closer high-level contacts so that
the two can assist each other at crucial moments,'' he said,
noting Iran was a major power in the Persian Gulf. ``Closer
cooperation between Tehran and Damascus can help delay U.S.
plans against the two countries.''
Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, who also met al-Otari, said
Iran and Syria would safeguard their political relations by
strengthening their economic ties, IRNA reported.
Pressure on Syria has grown since Monday's assassination of
former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri. Many Lebanese
accuse Syria or the pro-Syrian Lebanese government of
involvement, which both deny. The United States recalled its
ambassador to Damascus after the killing.
Bush said he did not know if Syria was involved in Hariri's
killing, but that Damascus is ``out of step with the progress
being made in the greater Middle East.'' The ambassador's
withdrawal, he noted, indicates ``the relationship is not moving
forward.''
Syria's Deputy Foreign Minister Walid Mouallem said Lebanon was
not the cause of the deteriorating relations.
``What is happening between us and the United States in essence
has to do with Iraq and not Lebanon,'' Mouallem said on
Al-Jazeera TV. ``We want a normal relationship with Washington,
but can the United States get rid of Israel's influence in order
to build this relationship?''
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
3 Xinhua: Russia to help Iran in peaceful using nuclear energy
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2005-02-18 02:27:05
MOSCOW, Feb. 17 (Xinhuanet) -- Russia stresses the
importance of aconstructive dialogue between Iran and the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and intends to help
Iran in developing peaceful nuclear energy projects, Russian
Security Council Secretary Igor Ivanov said on Thursday.
At a meeting with Iran's National Security Council Secretary
Hasan Rohani in the Kremlin Ivanov said that Russia emphasizes
theimportance of further constructive dialogue between Iran and
the IAEA on the basis of international norms and commitments,
the Interfax news agency reported.
According to the council's press service, Russia hopes for
Tehran's early ratification of the additional protocol on
guarantees and supports the implementation of agreements reached
between Iran and the EU "troika" of the United Kingdom, France
andGermany.
Ivanov confirmed Russia's intention to help Iran develop
peaceful nuclear energy projects in strict compliance with
corresponding international norms and commitments, the press
service said.
Russia is completing construction of a nuclear power plant
in Iranian Bushehr, which is to start operating in one year's
time.
Numerous IAEA inspections showed that Russia renders
assistanceto Iran in creating a completely peaceful nuclear
energy industry.However, some Western countries continue to
express discontent over this work, the Itar-Tass said.
Rouhani arrived in Moscow from Algeria where he announced
Iran's plans to build seven nuclear power stations "to prevent
full dependence on the oil sector". He noted that IAEA
inspectors got fully convinced that the Iranian nuclear
programme is not aimed atdeveloping weapons of mass destruction,
the report said. Enditem
Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
4 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Warns of 'Swift Reaction' if Attacked
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Thursday February 17, 2005 11:16 AM
AP Photo XHS101
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
Associated Press Writer
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran on Thursday warned of a fast, crushing
response to any attack on its nuclear facilities and said an
explosion heard in the south a day earlier that sparked fears of
foreign military activity was the result of construction work.
Wednesday's explosion near the Gulf port city of Deylam,
initially reported by a wing of state-run television to be a
missile strike or anti-aircraft fire, was said on Thursday to
have been from construction work on a dam. Other previous
explanations included friendly fire from military exercises and
a fuel tank that was dropped from a plane.
Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani was quoted by state-run radio
Thursday as saying that the explosion was not an attack, but
that any hostile action would result in Iranian military action.
``Any time the Iranian nation watches our crushing response to
the enemy, they should know that one of our nuclear or
non-nuclear facilities has been attacked,'' he was quoted as
saying.
Shamkhani added that ``any aggression'' against Iranian
facilities would ``meet a swift reaction.''
Iran said the explosion, near the southwestern port city of
Deylam, about 110 miles from the Bushehr nuclear facility, was
the result of construction work.
``The sound of Wednesday's explosion was due to road building
operations in the mountainous region of Deylam for the Kowsar
Dam,'' Deputy Interior Minister for Security Affairs Ali Asghar
Ahmadi said Thursday.
On Wednesday a a top security official of the Supreme National
Security Council, Ali Agha Mohammadi, gave a similar account.
The explosion prompted fears of a missile attack, and though
U.S. and Israeli officials denied any involvement with the
blast, it spiked oil prices and showed unease about the
international confrontation over Iran's nuclear program.
The United States accuses Iran of having a secret program to
make nuclear weapons. Iran insists its nuclear activities are
for peaceful energy purposes.
Israel has warned that it may consider a pre-emptive strike
against Iranian nuclear installations along the lines of its
1981 bombing of an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor near
Baghdad.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said a military strike
against Iran was ``not on the agenda at this point,'' but
President Bush has said his administration wouldn't take any
option off the table.
On Wednesday, Iran's Intelligence Minister Ali Yunesi publicly
confirmed for the first time that the United States has been
flying surveillance drones over Iran's airspace to spy on its
nuclear and military facilities.
``Most of the shining objects that our people see in Iran's
airspace are American spying equipment used to spy on Iran's
nuclear and military facilities,'' the minister told reporters.
His remarks confirmed a Sunday report in The Washington Post
that quoted unidentified U.S. officials as saying the drones
have been flying over Iran for nearly a year to seek evidence of
nuclear weapons programs.
``These activities won't reveal anything to them,'' Yunesi said
of the Americans. ``Our nuclear activities are open and very
transparent. Our military activities are all legal.''
In December, the Iranian air force was ordered to shoot down any
unknown flying objects. At the time, there were reports in
Iranian newspapers that Iran had discovered spying devices in
the pilotless planes that its air defense force had shot down.
``If any of the bright objects come close, they will definitely
meet our fire and will be shot down. We possess the necessary
equipment to confront them,'' Yunesi said.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
5 Guardian Unlimited: Russia's Nuclear Chief to Seal Iran Deal
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Thursday February 17, 2005 5:46 PM
MOSCOW (AP) - Russia's nuclear chief said Thursday he will
travel to Iran next week to sign a protocol on returning spent
nuclear fuel to Russia, the only remaining obstacle to the
launch of a Russian-built nuclear reactor in Iran.
Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency head Alexander Rumyantsev
said he would sign the long-delayed protocol in Tehran on Feb.
26, paving the way for deliveries of Russian nuclear fuel for
the Bushehr reactor, which is set to begin operating in early
2006.
The United States and Israel fear the $800 million Bushehr deal
could help Tehran build nuclear weapons, by allowing Iran to
reprocess spent nuclear fuel from the reactor to extract
plutonium.
Moscow has said having Iran ship spent fuel back to Russia -
along with international monitoring - will make any such project
impossible, but the U.S. has continued to oppose the deal.
The protocol had been delayed repeatedly by what Iranian and
Russian officials have described as technical and financial
details. Nuclear agency spokesman Nikolai Shingaryov said
deliveries of enriched nuclear fuel could start within a month
or two after the signing.
Igor Ivanov, the secretary of Russia's presidential Security
Council, on Thursday told his visiting Iranian counterpart Hasan
Rowhani that Moscow will continue ``helping develop Iran's
peaceful nuclear energy program.''
Washington accuses Tehran of having a secret nuclear weapons
program, while Iran insists its nuclear activities only serve
peaceful energy purposes.
In a sign of the sensitivity surrounding Bushehr, an explosion
Wednesday near Iran's southern port of Deylam, close to the
reactor, prompted fears of a missile attack. Though U.S. and
Israeli officials denied any involvement with the blast, it
spiked oil prices and stirred up fears about the confrontation
over Iran's nuclear program.
Iranian officials said the explosion was part of construction on
a dam, but warned that any attack on its nuclear facilities
would meet a swift response.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
6 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: North radio transcript puzzles analysts
February 18, 2005 KST 14:29 (GMT+9)
February 18, 2005 ¤Ñ A transcript obtained by the JoongAng
Ilbo of a Monday broadcast by a state-run North Korean radio
station appears to contradict Pyeongyang's claim last week that
the regime has nuclear weapons. But its meaning was not entirely
clear, and experts were divided over what significance it had,
if any.
The newspaper obtained a transcript of a Monday broadcast by a
state-run radio station which, on Feb. 10, had broadcast the
regime's announcement that it had nuclear weapons. The Monday
transcript included this statement: "The United States, which
has been intoxicated with victories in invasion wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq, has designated our republic, which it
called part of an axis of evil, as the next target to attack,
while circulating theories of nuclear and missile threats that
we are not in possession of."
Asked to comment on this statement ¡ª which, though somewhat
ambiguous in the original Korean, seems to assert that the
regime is "not in possession" of "nuclear and missile threats"
¡ª some observers suggested that the apparent discrepancy may
suggest conflict within the North's power elite. But
intelligence officers point out that there have been no other
signs of such a conflict in recent days.
Jun Bong-geun, director of the private Institute for Peace and
Cooperation, called the apparent discrepancy hard to understand,
given the North Korean regime's absolute control over the media.
"It could be that there was a miscommunication between the
foreign ministry and the state media," said Mr. Jun.
Chung Young-tae, a researcher with South Korea's state-run Korea
Institute for National Unification, said, "The discrepancy in
the North Korean media demonstrates that our government should
not read too much into the nuclear weapons possession statement
itself, but [pay attention to] the underlying diplomatic
strategy."
In other developments related to the Pyeongyang nuclear issue,
U.S. Central Intelligence Agency director Porter Goss told the
U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee that Pyeongyang's nuclear
arsenal has grown since a January 2002 CIA assessment that
estimated that the North had enough plutonium to make one or two
nuclear weapons.
Mr. Goss said that Pyeongyang could resume missile tests at any
time, including tests of its longer-range missiles such as the
Taepo Dong-2. "We assess the TD-2 is capable of reaching the
United States with a nuclear-weapon-sized payload," he said. He
said Pyeongyang is continuing to try to sell its missile
technology to other countries.
Former South Korean president Kim Dae-jung yesterday urged
Pyeongyang to return to negotiations, warning that the North was
providing ammunition to Washington hard-liners. Referring to the
North's offer to dismantle its nuclear program in exchange for
U.S. security assurances, Mr. Kim said, "The North's argument is
just, but the method is wrong and has backfired. The North needs
to present its argument at the six-party talks."
by Lee Young-jong, Brian Lee africanu@joongang.co.kr>
Copyright by Joins.com, Inc. Terms of Use |
*****************************************************************
7 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: Official says China has most sway with North
February 18, 2005 KST 14:29 (GMT+9)
February 18, 2005 ¤Ñ China, a supplier of up to 80 to 90
percent of the goods and products flowing into North Korea,
could hold strong sway over the country that defiantly declared
last week it has nuclear weapons, said Seoul's ambassador to
China.
In a joint television interview on South Korea's YTN station,
the country's ambassadors to China, Japan, the United States and
Russia presented their views on how to resolve the newest crisis
over North Korea's nuclear program.
Ambassador Kim Ha-jung said Pyeongyang's bold statement
claiming it would also withdraw from six-nation talks was
nothing new in its brinkmanship strategy. He dismissed it as an
attempt by Pyeongyang to raise its bargaining leverage.
Hong Seok-hyun, U.S. ambassador, pointed out that Pyeongyang's
statement contained some positive aspects. Mr. Hong said the
North mentioned in its statement its support for a denuclearized
peninsula and an emphasis on negotiations.
"Based on a close policy cooperation between South Korea and
the United States and cooperation among the other countries,
there is a good chance that we can bring back North Korea to the
negotiating table," said Mr. Hong.
As participants in the talks look increasingly more to Beijing
to break the nuclear standoff, Ambassador Kim also said that
China's means to pressure Pyeongyang are bigger than others
might think.
Speaking separately to reporters at the South Korea's Foreign
Ministry on Beijing's ability to pressure Pyeongyang, Mr. Kim
pointed out that products flow between the two countries on 15
roads along the border.
"Imagine what would happen if China blocks two to three roads,"
said the ambassador, who also said that the visit of Chinese
Minister Wang Jiarui of the Department of Liason of the Central
Committee of the Communist Party to Pyeongyang may have been to
persuade Pyeongyang back to the negotiation table.
"China has been North Korea's ally for 55 years," Ambassador Kim
said. "If it [China] uses the pressure card there could be a
fundamental damage and a bad reaction to it. China seems to
think it's not the time to use pressure."
"The current situation has been anticipated to a certain
extent. That is why all participating countries are acting
calmly," said Ra Jong-yil, the South Korean ambassador to Japan.
The four South Korean ambassadors of China, the United States,
Russia and Japan all agreed diplomatic and peaceful means are
key.
by Brian Lee africanu@joongang.co.kr>
Copyright by Joins.com, Inc. Terms of Use |
*****************************************************************
8 Xinhua: Official plans DPRK visit on nuclear impasse
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2005-02-18 08:09:18
BEIJING, Feb. 18 -- China will send a senior Party official
to Pyongyang this week to try to bring the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea (DPRK) back to the negotiation table to end
the 28-month nuclear standoff.
Wang Jiarui, head of the International Department of the
Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee will lead a
delegation invitated by the Workers' Party of Korea, Foreign
Ministry spokesman Kong Quan told yesterday's regular media
briefing.
A Beijing-based source said Wang will visit Pyongyang this
weekend but gave no further details.
The DPRK announced last Thursday it possessed nuclear
weapons and was pulling out of the six-party talks on the
standoff, which also include China, the United States, the
Republic of Korea, Russia and Japan.
"We are still analyzing its February 10 statement, and China
has maintained close contact with all the other related parties
including Pyongyang since then," said Kong.
Christopher Hill, the newly-appointed top US representative
to the talks, and ROK Deputy Foreign Minister Song Min-soon held
talks yesterday with Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing in
Beijing.
Li told Hill that under the current complicated situation,
all relevant parties should maintain their patience, resolve and
confidence, and should make "constructive efforts" to prevent
the situation from further worsening. He said the talks should
be resumed "as soon as possible."
The three sides again expressed their hope to strive for an
early resumption of six-party talks. Li called on all parties to
step up diplomatic efforts, to prevent the situation on the
peninsula from becoming further complicated.
Li also discussed the issue in separate telephone calls with
his Japanese, ROK, US and Russian counterparts several days ago.
"It is a big challenge to Beijing to take action to bring
Pyongyang back to the negotiations," said Fan Jishe, a senior
researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
The expert said it is unfair for other parties such as the
United States to complain that China did not bring its "great
potential influence" over Pyongyang in the process into full
play.
Beijing has hosted three rounds of talks so far and
Pyongyang has refused to return to the negotiating table for a
fourth round of talks, blaming the "hostile policy" of the
United States.
China, which provides significant support to the DPRK's
economic development, does not wish to see turbulence on the
Korean Peninsula, as this is not in China's interests and also
threatens regional stability, said Fan.
"Therefore, economic sanctions are not an ideal way to solve
the issue," said the expert.
But one thing China will constantly stress during the
process is that the Chinese side adheres to the principle of a
nuclear weapons-free Korean Peninsula and its position in this
regard is unshakable, Fan said.
Fan said Beijing is expected to combine friendly and sincere
but firm diplomacy with clear and strong word in private.
(Source: China Daily)
Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
9 Guardian Unlimited: Outgoing U.S. Ambassador Warns on N. Korea
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Thursday February 17, 2005 4:16 AM
By ERIC TALMADGE
Associated Press Writer
TOKYO (AP) - The outgoing U.S. ambassador to Japan warned on
Wednesday that North Korea is a ``major problem'' in assuring
regional security in Asia, and said he believes Pyongyang's
claims that it has successfully developed nuclear weapons.
North Korea flouted the international community last week by
announcing it had nuclear weapons and was staying away from
international nuclear talks where China, Japan, Russia, South
Korea and the United States have urged it to abandon its atomic
weapons development.
Howard Baker, who left Japan on Thursday after nearly four
years, said he was disappointed by the announcement, but he
believes the six-party talks - the cornerstone of President
Bush's policy with North Korea - are not yet dead.
``North Korea is a major problem and a dangerous problem, both
to Japan and the region,'' he told a small group of reporters at
the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo, but added: ``I think there is a
continuing chance that North Korea will come back to the
table.''
Baker said he believes the secretive communist nation has
developed nuclear weapons.
``I do believe them,'' he said. ``I don't see any advantage to
us not believing them. They have said more than once that they
have nuclear weapons and are a nuclear state.''
Still, he acknowledged that what North Korea is actually up to
is often a mystery, and stressed that Washington's focus will be
on getting the North to rejoin talks. He said the military
option is ``not in the cards,'' at least not imminently.
``We have very meager intelligence resources,'' he said. ``We
are kind of flying blind.''
The United States maintains some 50,000 troops in Japan under a
mutual security treaty. Experts believe virtually all of them -
and all of Japan - are within striking range of North Korean
ballistic missiles.
Baker said a direct attack, however, is not his main concern.
``What worries me the most about North Korea, to tell you the
truth, is not that they are going to bomb Tokyo, but that they
have a demonstrated record of selling any military device they
own.''
Baker, 79, had a long career in politics before being named
ambassador in 2001. He was a three-term Republican senator from
Tennessee, Senate majority leader, presidential candidate and
White House chief of staff to Ronald Reagan.
He had open heart surgery in August and returned to Tokyo in
October.
Bush has named a former fellow investor in the Texas Rangers, J.
Thomas Schieffer, to be Baker's replacement.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
10 Guardian Unlimited: China's Help Sought on North Korea Talks
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Thursday February 17, 2005 1:31 PM
AP Photo BEJ101
By ELAINE KURTENBACH
Associated Press Writer
BEIJING (AP) - China is sending a top communist party official
to North Korea this week, the government said Thursday, amid
renewed efforts to get Beijing's longtime ally to resume stalled
talks on its nuclear weapons program.
Top negotiators from the United States and South Korea were in
Beijing seeking China's help on persuading the isolated North to
return to multination nuclear talks that were suspended in June.
South Korean officials, speaking in Seoul, said they believed
China, the North's biggest backer and a major source of aid to
the impoverished country, could do more to win over Pyongyang.
``I think China has a much bigger card to play than we expect.
The question is whether it will play it,'' South Korea's
ambassador to China, Kim Ha-joong, said at a news conference
Thursday in Seoul.
North Korea has rejected calls to return to the talks, accusing
Washington of hostility. Last week, it claimed it has produced
nuclear weapons.
Wary of openly testing its influence with the North, China has
urged patience, while saying it strongly favors a nuclear-free
Korean peninsula.
``We are of the view that we should not resort to sanctions or
pressure in international relations,'' Foreign Ministry
spokesman Kong Quan said at a regular briefing.
Such tactics ``will not solve problems, but instead escalate
tensions,'' he said.
Although Chinese troops fought to defend North Korea in the
1950-53 Korean War, Beijing worries that a nuclear-armed North
Korea would raise tensions in the region and prompt Japan and
South Korea to also develop nuclear weapons.
Quan confirmed that Wang Jiarui, head of the Communist Party's
international department, would visit Pyongyang this week. Quan
would not provide dates.
While working to resolve the standoff, ``the Chinese side
requires that the DPRK side and United States show more
flexibility and sincerity,'' Kong said, using the acronym for
the North's formal name, the Democratic People's Republic of
Korea.
Christopher Hill, the new U.S. negotiator assigned to trying to
dismantle the North's nuclear program, participated in a day of
talks Thursday.
``Very good meetings,'' Hill said. ``I'm not going into
specifics. It was a very good, introductory talk.''
Hill, who is also U.S. ambassador to South Korea, is just
beginning to make the rounds after being appointed head of the
American delegation to the North Korea talks on Monday.
Washington views North Korea as a formidable threat even without
a nuclear capability.
The North continues to ``develop, produce, deploy and sell
ballistic missiles of increasing range and sophistication,'' CIA
director Porter Goss told a U.S. Senate Committee on Wednesday.
Goss said Pyongyang could resume missile tests at any time,
despite a 1999 agreement with the United States not to conduct
such tests. CIA analysts also believe the North plans to build a
uranium-based nuclear bomb in addition to plutonium-based
weapons and chemical and biological weapons programs.
South Korea's deputy foreign minister, Song Min-soon, also
traveled to Beijing for talks with his Chinese counterparts.
``I came to China to reopen the six-nation talks as soon as
possible and thus settle the nuclear issue smoothly,'' Song
said.
Speaking in Seoul, South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon
said China has told his government it plans to take ``other
initiatives'' apart from sending Wang to Pyongyang.
Ban did not elaborate. But Kim, the South Korean ambassador to
Beijing, noted Beijing's role as the North's main supplier of
fuel, aid and other imports.
``There are currently a few railways and 15 unofficial roads
connecting North Korea and China,'' Kim said. ``Imagine what
kind of situation will arise in North Korea if China decides one
day to close three of those roads for repair for a couple of
months.''
China is believed to supply Pyongyang with up to one-third of
its food and one-quarter of its energy. The North has depended
on foreign aid to feed its people since the collapse of its
government farm system in the mid-1990s and the loss of Soviet
subsidies.
But Beijing insists it has little influence over the isolated
Stalinist regime of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il.
``China will be concerned about whether playing that card will
hurt their 55 years of amicable relationship with the North,''
Kim acknowledged.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
11 [Bananas] ALERT: Urge Your Rep. to Sign Markey Letter on
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:54:10 -0800
DU has been used in the testing of these bunker busters.
PLEASE FORWARD
Dear Activist,
Congressman Edward Markey (D-MA) is circulating a Dear Colleague letter
opposing funding for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator and the Reliable
Replacement Warhead, two new nuclear weapons programs in the Energy
Department's Fiscal Year 2006 budget request to Congress. The Dear
Colleague is attached in pdf format and the letter that will go to the
House Armed Services and Appropriations Committees before they vote on
these programs is below. There are already over thirty signatures on the
letter, listed below the letter. This letter will remain open for about a
month so there is enough time to really drive up the number of signatures
towards Rep. Markey's goal of 200. The most likely Members to sign are
those who voted to oppose the nuclear bunker buster in last year's floor
vote, listed on the web at http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll203.xml
(listed as the AYES, 204 Representatives voted to oppose funding for the
nuclear bunker buster).
If your Representative voted against the nuclear bunker buster last year
and has not yet signed this letter, please call their office and urge them
to contact Congressman Markey's office to sign onto this letter.
The Capitol Switchboard number is 202-224-3121.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Bridgman, Program Director
Alliance for Nuclear Accountability
jcbridgman@earthlink.net
202-544-0217; 6143 (fax)
322 4th Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002
www.ananuclear.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[Chairman]
[Ranking Member]
[House Appropriations Committee; [House
Appropriations Committee;
House Armed Services Committee] House Armed
Services]
Dear Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member:
We are writing to urge you to eliminate funding for the Department for both
the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP), the so-called bunker buster,
and other new nuclear weapons. Last year the Appropriations Subcommittee on
Energy and Water zeroed funding for the Department of Energy's nuclear
"bunker buster," and all other additional funding for new nuclear weapons
under Advanced Concepts, which is now under the Department's new program
Reliable Replacement Warhead.
As you know, the Administration's FY2006 budget request includes $4 million
to revive funding for the RNEP, a nuclear weapon intended to destroy deeply
buried and hardened targets such as leadership bunkers or chemical and
biological weapons caches, and an additional $4.5 million for RNEP testing
under the Air Force Budget. Another $14 million would be requested by DOE
in FY2007. According to the DOE Budget request:
Activities include participating in integrated NNSA-DoD integrated product
teams for development of RNEP requirements and programmatic documents;
system design and integration; planning, cost and risks analyses, and
phenomenology studies.
In addition to the Bunker Buster, the Reliable Replacement Warhead program
in the President's budget raises a number of concerns. This program was
added in the Omnibus Conference last year to replace Advanced Concepts. The
scope and direction of this program must be clearly defined so that this
program does not simply replace the one Congress canceled last year. The
Reliable Replacement Warhead program requests a whopping $97 million in
funding over the next five years. According to the DOE Budget Request:
Advanced Concepts Initiative.has been replaced by Stockpile Services
Reliable Replacement Warhead.to demonstrate the feasibility of developing
reliable replacement components that are producible and certifiable for the
existing stockpile. The initial focus will be to provide cost and schedule
efficient replacement pits that can be certified without Underground Tests
The United States faces a serious national security threat from the
proliferation of nuclear weapons materials and technologies, most notably
in North Korea, Pakistan and Iran. We believe that the pursuit of new
nuclear weapons such as RNEP sends a dangerously mixed signal to the rest
of the world and erodes our nonproliferation credibility. Nations that see
the U.S. expanding and diversifying our nuclear arsenal are encouraged to
seek or maintain nuclear deterrents of their own and ignore
nonproliferation obligations. Additionally, a U.S. move toward expanding
and diversifying our nuclear stockpile is contrary to our legal obligations
under Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
(NPT), which clearly requires the United States to work toward reducing our
nuclear arsenal.
In light of the adverse impact of the pursuit of RNEP and any other new
nuclear weapon on international nonproliferation efforts, the fact that
RNEP would inevitably spread high levels of radiation above ground, and
existing U.S. earth-penetrating and other conventional weapons
capabilities, we believe that the RNEP study and the development of any new
nuclear weapons are a dangerous and wasteful use of taxpayer money. We are
also concerned that shifting funding from the cancelled Advanced Concepts
program into the Reliable Replacement Warhead program may result in new
nuclear warheads moving forward without any established need or compelling
justification. We therefore ask that you eliminate funds for the RNEP
program and for any program to study or develop new types of nuclear weapons.
Sincerely,
Ackerman, Gary
Allen, Tom
Baldwin, Tammy
Berman, Howard
Blumenauer, Earl
DeFazio, Peter
DeLauro, Rosa
Dicks, Norman
Doggett, Lloyd
Engel, Eliot
Eshoo, Anna
Farr, Sam
Frank, Barney
McDermott, Jim
McGovern, James
Markey, Edward
Matheson, Jim
Meehan, Martin
Miller, George
Nadler, Jerrold
Sabo, Martin
Sanchez, Loretta
Schakowsky, Janice
Serrano, Jose
Slaughter, Louise
Spratt, John
Stark, Fortney Pete
Tauscher, Ellen
Woolsey, Lynn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Bridgman, Program Director
Alliance for Nuclear Accountability
jcbridgman@earthlink.net
202-544-0217; 6143 (fax)
322 4th Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002
www.ananuclear.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own computers.
At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/EA3HyD/3MnJAA/79vVAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
12 Las Vegas SUN: Renewable energy report encouraging for Nevada
February 16, 2005
By Benjamin Grove SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- With the support of Congress, the United States
could realistically rely on renewable energy sources for 20
percent of the nation's electricity needs by 2020, a new report
says.
Nevada could reap a windfall of benefits from new renewable
energy plants, according to U.S. Public Interest Research Group,
which today released a new report, "Redirecting America's
Energy."
The nation should move away from traditional coal, gas and
nuclear plants that pollute and, in the case of nuclear, produce
a deadly waste that the federal government aims to bury in
Nevada, the report said.
"Nevada is really positioned to be a winner with this policy,"
said Brad Johnson, U.S. PIRG spokesman. "This helps remove
nuclear power and really could jump-start a whole new industry
in Nevada."
Nevada has long been considered a perfect state for developing
wind, solar and geothermal -- electricity generated from heat
mined deep underground -- power.
But critics of renewable energy and even some of its supporters
in Congress have said renewable energy will never be a
significant part of the nation's energy production. They say
renewable energy sources are impractical and inefficient.
Critics say renewable energy sources cannot be a significant
factor in U.S. electricity production in part because only
certain areas of the country can produce near-constant sun or
wind.
Renewable sources now generate about 2.3 percent of U.S.
electricity. Coal plants produce about 50 percent; nuclear 20
percent; gas 18 percent and hydropower 7 percent.
The 20 percent goal for renewables is "almost certainly out of
reach," said Jerry Taylor, director of Natural Resource Studies
at the CATO Institute, a libertarian Washington think tank that
promotes limited government. "It's hard to see how we could
increase it in such a short period of time."
Taylor said energy analysts predict a slight rise in renewable
energy generation, but only with significant government
subsidies and mandates, such as states requiring that certain
percentages of electricity be generated by renewable energy.
As U.S. PIRG was releasing its report in Washington today,
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Pete
Domenici, R-N.M., was speaking at a gathering across town of 200
nuclear industry insiders. Domenici, the Senate's leading
advocate of Yucca Mountain, repeated a call that he has made for
years: America needs to build new nuclear plants. Domenici has
called for more renewable energy, too, but he has said nuclear
holds the most promise for meeting massive energy demands.
Revitalizing nuclear power and producing more Nevada-bound
radioactive waste in an effort to decrease greenhouse gases
produced by coal plants is "trading one problem off for
another," said Navin Nayak, environmental advocate for U.S. PIRG.
The U.S. PIRG report goads Congress to make a monumental shift
in its priorities. It recommends that lawmakers use the subsidy
and benefit money intended for fossil fuels and nuclear power
for renewable energy development.
The shift would ultimately create more jobs than investment in
fossil fuel and nuclear plants and save consumers money on
electric bills, the group's report argues.
Renewable energy supporters acknowledge they will have a tough
time arguing their case in a Republican Congress that has
offered mixed support for renewable energy.
"It's a long-term strategy," Johnson said. "In some years we
are more likely to find support than others. That doesn't change
the fact that it's the right thing to do."
Bush's budget request to Congress last week proposed a 4
percent cut in energy efficiency and renewable energy spending.
That included an 8 percent cut in geothermal energy programs.
Of significant concern to some Nevada officials is that Bush
seems to be backing off support for offering a 1.8-cent per
kilowatt-hour production tax credit for geothermal plants, said
Dick Burdette, energy adviser to Gov. Kenny Guinn. That's a
significant break for investors, given that it costs roughly 5
to 6 cents to produce the kilowatt-hour of electricity, Burdette
said.
Nevada has 15 geothermal plants, mostly in the western half of
the state, with four more under development, Burdette said. The
plants mostly serve rural Nevada and California.
Bush proposes tax production credits for wind energy, which
isn't fair, Nevada officials said.
"That hurts Nevada," Burdette said. "Skewing your investment
toward wind doesn't make any sense."
Renewable energy lobbyists aim to convince Congress, which is
reconsidering a comprehensive energy strategy bill for the fifth
straight year, not to pick favorites, said Karl Gawell,
executive director of the Geothermal Energy Association.
*****************************************************************
13 UCS: Kyoto Treaty Goes Into Effect Without U.S.
[Union of Concerned Scientists]
February 16, 2005
Statement by Kevin Knobloch, President, Union of Concerned
Scientists
"As the Kyoto global warming treaty goes into effect today in
nearly every developed nation except the United States,
scientists everywhere are concluding with growing urgency that
increasing global warming emissions are creating dangerous
conditions for life on earth.
"Earlier this month, two hundred climate experts from 30
countries meeting in England discussed disturbing new evidence
of our growing impact on the earth's climate. They found that
serious risk of large-scale irreversible disruptions, including
disintegration of the vast Greenland and West Antarctic ice
sheets, could be triggered by warmer temperatures projected for
this century.
"To have a fighting chance to keep global warming within safe
levels, countries like the United States must reduce emissions
of carbon dioxide by 80 percent below 2000 levels by 2050and we
must begin to make those reductions right away.
"Regrettably, the Bush Administration has not only failed to
demonstrate such leadership, but has actively worked to
misrepresent climate science and block even informal discussions
among nations about future efforts to reduce harmful emissions.
That abject failure of leadership is not only expanding the risk
to life from global warming but also holding back U.S. companies
that should be making and selling the most efficient cars and
trucks, appliances and renewable energy systems here and in
Europe, Japan, China and India.
"One bright sign is that corporate leaders, taking a hard look
at the science, are recognizing their responsibility to act now.
John Rowe, chairman of Exelon Corp., a Chicago-based electric
utility, recently said, 'The science on climate change has
become overwhelming' as he endorsed a call to regulate global
warming emissions. Another major utility, Cinergy Corp., said
that a 'well constructed policy that gradually and predictably'
reduces global warming emissions can be managed 'without undue
disruption to the company or the economy.' Many other corporate
leaders share these views, but are reluctant to speak out,
afraid of retaliation if they publicly disagree with the Bush
administration on this issue.
"What we need now is political leadership that responds to the
science with action, starting with Congressional passage of the
McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act, which would create an
economy-wide mechanism to begin the reduction of global warming
emissions. National policies to dramatically increase the fuel
efficiency of motor vehicles, deploy renewable energy and
biofuels, rewire the electricity grid and make our homes and
businesses far more efficient should follow quickly.
"As the rest of the developed world begins to implement the
Kyoto protocol, it's time for the United States to restore its
proud heritage of can-do leadership. The science makes clear we
haven't a moment to lose."
RICH HAYES
Media Director
202-223-6133
rhayes@ucsusa.org
© Union of Concerned Scientists
Page Last Revised: 02.16.2005
*****************************************************************
14 Skeptical Inquirer: Critical Thinking About Energy
January/February 2005)
Critical Thinking About Energy
The Case for Decentralized Generation of Electricity
Highly centralized generation of electrical power is a paradigm
that has outlived its usefulness. Decentralized generation could
save $5 trillion in capital investment, reduce power costs by 40
percent, reduce vulnerabilities, and cut greenhouse gas
emissions in half.
Thomas R. Casten and Brennan Downes
Electricity was originally generated at remote hydroelectric
dams or by burning coal in the city centers, delivering
electricity to nearby buildings and recycling the waste heat to
make steam to heat the same buildings. Rural houses had no
access to power. Over time, coal plants grew in size, facing
pressure to locate far from population because of their
pollution. Transmission wires carried the electricity many miles
to users with a 10 to 15 percent loss, a difficult but tolerable
situation. Because it is not practical to transmit waste heat
over long distances, the heat was vented. There was no good
technology available for clean, local generation, so the wasted
heat was a tradeoff for cleaner air in the cities. Eventually a
huge grid was developed and the power industry built all-new
generation in remote areas, far from users. All plants were
specially designed and built on site, creating economies of
scale. It cost less per unit of generation to build large plants
than to build smaller plants. These conditions prevailed from
1910 through 1960, and everyone in the power industry and
government came to assume that remote, central generation was
optimal, that it would deliver power at the lowest cost versus
other alternatives.
However, technology has improved and natural gas distribution
now blankets the country. By 1970, mass-produced engines and
turbines cost less per unit of capacity than large plants, and
the emissions have been steadily reduced. These smaller engines
and gas turbines are good neighbors, and can be located next to
users in the middle of population centers. Furthermore, the
previously wasted heat can be recycled from these decentralized
generation plants to displace boiler fuel and essentially cut
the fuel for electric generation in half, compared to remote or
central generation of the same power.
But the industry had ossified. Electric monopolies were allowed
to charge rates to give a fair return on capital employed. To
prevent excessive or monopoly profits, the utilities have long
been required to pass 100 percent of any gain in efficiency to
the users. This leaves utilities with no financial incentive to
adopt new technologies and build decentralized generation that
recycles heat. In fact, such local generation erodes the
rationale for continued monopoly protection—if one can make
cheap power at every factory or high rise apartment house, why
should society limit competition?
Congress tried to open competition a little bit in 1978, and
some independent power companies began to develop on-site
generation wherever they could find ways around the monopoly
regulation. One author (Casten) was one of those early pioneers,
working to develop more efficient decentralized generation since
1975. This article summarizes extensive research into the
economically optimal way to build new power generation in each
of the past 30 years, given then available technology, capital
costs, and fuel prices, and concludes that the continuing
near-universal acceptance of the “central generation paradigm”
is wrong. The result is a skeptical look at the world’s largest
industry—the electric power industry—with surprising
conclusions.
Power industry regulations largely derive from the unquestioned
belief that central generation is optimal. However we believe
the conventional “central generation paradigm” is based on last
century’s technology. Meeting the world’s growing appetite for
electric power with conventional central generation will
severely tax capital markets, fossil fuel markets, and the
global environment. The International Energy Agency’s (IEA) 2002
World Energy Outlook Reference Case—based on present
policies—presents a frightening view of the next thirty years.
[1] The Reference Case says world energy demand will grow by
two-thirds, with fossil fuels meeting 90 percent of the
increase. World electrical demand doubles, requiring
construction of nearly 5,000 gigawatts of new generating
capacity, equivalent to adding six times current United States
electric generating capacity. The generation alone will cost
$4.2 trillion, plus transmission and distribution (T) costs of
$6.6 trillion (2004 U.S. dollars). Under this projection, global
carbon dioxide emissions increase by 70 percent; see figure 1.
Figure 1. World installed electricity generation capacity.
The Reference Case assumes that the energy policies of each
government in 2002 continue without change, a modest evolution
of technology, and continued reliance on central generation of
electric power, which is consistent with most existing policies
and regulations. The IEA projections assume that central
generation is the optimal approach, given today’s technology.
The IEA report is silent on the need for (or capital cost of)
new T, even though existing T is far from adequate. There were
105 reported grid failures in the U.S. between 2000 and 2003,
and eleven of those outages affected more than a half million
people. [2] U.S. consumers paid $272 billion for electricity in
2003, [3] plus power outage costs, estimated between $80 billion
and $123 billion per year. Outages thus add 29 percent to 45
percent to the cost of U.S. power. [4] The T situation is worse
in developing countries, where 1.6 billion people lack any
access to electric power and many others are limited to a few
hours of service per day. Satisfying expected load growth with
central generation will clearly require at least comparable
construction of T capacity.
Close examination of past power industry options and choices
suggests that load growth can be met with just over half the
fossil fuel and pollution associated with conventional central
generation. We had better get this world energy expansion right.
Consider these points:
+ The power industry has not deployed optimal technology over
the past thirty years.
+ The universally accepted “Central Generation Paradigm”
prevents optimal energy decisions.
+ Decentralized generation (DG), using the same technologies
used by remote central generation, significantly improves every
key outcome from power generation.
+ Meeting global load growth with decentralized energy can
save $5 trillion of capital, lower the cost of incremental power
by 35–40 percent, and reduce CO2 emissions by 50 percent versus
the IEA central generation dominated reference case.
A Brief History of Electric Generation
Figure 2 shows that United States net electric efficiency peaked
in about 1910, when nearly all generation was located near users
and recycled waste heat. That efficiency dropped to 33 percent
over the next fifty years as the power industry moved to
electric-only central generation. Industry efficiency has not
improved in four decades. Technology improved, enabling
conversion of fuel to electricity to rise from 7 percent at
commercial inception to 33 percent by 1960. The best
electric-only technology now converts more than 50 percent of
the fuel to power, but the industry’s average efficiency has not
improved in forty-three years. No other industry wastes
two-thirds of its raw material; no other industry has stagnant
efficiency; no other industry gets less productivity per unit
output in 2004 than it did in 1904.
Figure 2. U.S. electricity generating efficiency, 1880 to
present.
Early generating technology converted 7 percent to 20 percent of
the fuel to electricity, making electric-only production quite
expensive. To reduce fuel costs, energy entrepreneurs, including
Thomas Edison, built generating plants near thermal users and
recycled waste heat, increasing net electric efficiency to as
much as 75 percent. A second wave of technical progress after
World War II drove electric-only efficiencies to 33 percent
(after distribution losses) and increased individual plant size
to between 500 and 1,000 megawatts. Central or remote generation
of electricity only, while still wasting two-thirds of the input
energy, became the standard. Buttressed by monopoly protection,
utilities fought competing on-site generation and, by 1970,
replaced all but 3 to 4 percent of local generation, ending
waste heat recycling. Government regulations, developed over the
first 90 years of commercial electricity, institutionalized
central generation.
The third wave of technical progress should have reversed the
central generation trend. Modern power plants emit only 1 to 2
percent as much nitrogen oxides as 1970 plants, come in all
sizes, burn all fuels, and are good neighbors. Many technical
advances make local or distributed generation technically and
economically feasible and enable society to return to energy
recycling, displacing boiler fuel and doubling net electric
efficiency. However, protected from competition and rewarded by
obsolete rules, the power industry continues to build remote
plants and ignores opportunities to recycle energy.
The squares in figure 2 represent the alternative to central or
remote generation. These are actual plants employing central
plant generation technologies that are located near users. These
combined heat and power (CHP) plants deploy the best modern
electric-only technology and achieve 65 percent to 97 percent
net electrical efficiency by recycling normally wasted heat and
by avoiding transmission and distribution losses. United States
Energy Information Agency (EIA) records show 931 distributed
generation plants with 72,800 megawatts of capacity, about 8.1
percent of U.S. generation. These plants demonstrate the
technical and economic feasibility of doubling U.S. electricity
efficiency.
Nevertheless, the U.S. and world power industry ignores—and
indeed actively fights against—distributed generation.
Conventional central generation plants dump two-thirds of their
energy into lakes, rivers, and cooling towers, while factories
and commercial facilities burn more fuel to produce the heat
just thrown away. We believe the power industry has not made
wise or efficient choices, and set out to test this thesis with
data.
A Flawed Worldwide Heat &Power System
To determine whether the power industry made optimal choices, we
analyzed EIA data on all 5,242 reported generation plants,
separating plants built by firms with monopoly- protected
territories and plants built by independent power producers. We
calculated what price per KWh would be required for each of four
central generation technologies, built in each year, to provide
a fair return on capital. [5]
We also analyzed distributed generation (DG) technology choices.
Several clarifications are necessary:
+ Distributed generation is any electric generating plant
located next to users.
+ DG is not a new concept. Edison built his first commercial
electric plant near Wall Street in lower Manhattan, and he
recycled energy to heat surrounding buildings.
+ DG plants employ all of the technologies that are used in
central generation.
+ DG plant capacities range from a few kilowatts to several
hundred megawatts, depending on the users’ needs. We have
installed 40-kilowatt backpressure steam turbines in office
buildings that recycle steam pressure drop, and managed a
200-megawatt coal-fired CHP plant serving Kodak’s world
headquarters in Rochester, New York.
+ DG can use renewable energy, but not every renewable energy
plant is DG. Solar photovoltaic panels on individual buildings
or local windmills are distributed generation, while large hydro
and wind farms are central generation requiring transmission and
distribution (T).
+ DG uses all fuels, including nuclear. Modern naval vessels
generate power with nuclear reactors and then recycle waste heat
to displace boiler fuel.
Power generated near users avoids the need for T. We have
assumed each kilowatt of new DG will require net T investment
equal to only 10 percent of a kilowatt, for backup services. [6]
We assume DG plants require a 50 percent higher average cost of
capital (12 percent versus 8 percent) due to risks and
transaction costs. Industrial companies that install DG see
power generation as a non-core activity and demand 35 percent to
50 percent rates of return, but this analysis focuses only on
power companies’ cost of capital.
Figure 3 depicts our findings. The line with asterisks shows the
average price of power to all U.S. consumers in each year. The
dashed lines show the retail price per megawatt-hour needed to
fully fund new plants using four power generation technologies
built as central stations, unable to recycle waste heat. (Note:
Move the decimal one number left in price per megawatt-hour to
equal cents per kilowatt-hour. For example, $65 per MWh is 6.5
cents per kWh.) The four highest solid lines show the retail
prices per megawatt-hour needed to fully pay for power from the
same technologies built near thermal users to recycle waste
heat. The two lowest solid lines depict retail prices per MWh
needed for power generated with recycled industrial process heat
or flare gas, and power extracted from gas or steam pressure
drop.
Figure 3. Long-term U.S. marginal cost of electronic generation
options.
Thermal plants generate steam by burning fossil fuel in boilers.
The steam then drives condensing steam turbines. Thermal
generation technology matured in the mid-fifties, achieving
maximum electric-only efficiency of 38 percent to 40 percent,
before line losses. Over the entire period, new central oil and
gas thermal plants (top dashed line) required prices well above
average retail. Gas turbines use a different cycle; the
technology improved dramatically over the period. Simple cycle
gas turbine plants (dashed line) required similar prices to
gas-fired thermal plants until 1985–90, when improving turbine
efficiency reduced fuel and lowered required prices. New coal
plants (dashed black line) could sell power for below average
retail prices each year until 1998. However, environmental rules
blocked coal plants in many states.
Combined cycle gas turbine plants (CCGTs) are the same gas
turbines described above, but the plants also make steam with
the turbine exhaust to drive a second power generation cycle—a
condensing steam turbine. The first commercial applications of
CCGTs were in 1974. These plants cost less to build than an oil
and gas thermal plant and initially achieved 40 percent
efficiency, which rose to 55 percent by 1995.
Distributed Generation Recycles Energy to Reduce Costs
The solid lines show retail prices required for distributed
generation or DG—building the same technologies near thermal
users and recycling normally wasted heat. The solid lines
demonstrate the economic value of recycling energy. Burning coal
in combined heat and power plants (solid black line) saves $11
to $27 per MWh versus burning coal in new central plants. Simple
cycle gas turbine plants built near users (solid line) save $25
to $60 per MWh versus the same technology producing only
electricity. Building combined cycle gas turbine plants near
users and recycling waste heat saves even more money, reducing
required costs by $25 per MWh versus the same technology built
remote from users.
The lowest-cost power avoids burning any extra fossil fuel by
recycling waste energy from process industries. Process
industries use fossil fuel or electricity to transform raw
materials and then discard energy in three forms including hot
exhaust gas, flare gas, and pressure drop. Local “bottoming
cycle” generation can recycle this waste into heat and/or power.
The two lowest solid lines show the retail price per
megawatt-hour needed for power recycled from waste heat, flare
gas, and gas or steam pressure drop after credit for displacing
boiler fuel with the recovered heat. These energy-recycling
plants can earn fair returns on capital selling retail power at
only 25 to 50 percent of average retail prices.
Power Industry Choices for New Capacity
An ideal approach would build all possible plants requiring the
lowest retail price per megawatt-hour first and then build
plants with the next lowest needed retail price, etc.
To determine whether the electric power industry made optimal
choices, we analyzed all power plants built since 1973. The new
generation built in each two-year period by monopolies, which we
defined as any utility with a protected distribution territory,
is seen in figure 4. Monopoly utilities include investor-owned
utilities, cooperatives, municipal utilities, and state and
federally owned utilities. They collectively built 435,000
megawatts of new generation, but ignored energy recycling, even
though it was always the cheapest option. They continued to
build oil and gas thermal plants long after CCGT plants were a
cheaper central option. Monopoly utilities were slow to make
optimal choices among central plant technologies and completely
ignored the more cost-effective distributed use of the same
technologies.
Figure 4. Annual U.S. utility additions of electricity
generating capacity by technology, 1973-2002.
Figure 5 shows the 175,000 MW of new generation built by
independent power producers (IPP’s) since 1973. Most new IPP
plants were distributed generation and/or combined cycle plants
until the last four years. The price spikes of 1998–2000
apparently induced IPP companies to install simple cycle gas
turbines for peaking. Prior to 1978 passage of the Public
Utility Policy Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA) it was illegal to
build generation as a third party. Between 1978 and the law
change in 1992, IPPs were allowed to build qualifying
facilities—those that recycled at least 10 percent of the fuel’s
energy for heat use, or utilized certain waste fuels. After
1992, IPPs could legally build remote electric-only generation
plants.
Figure 5. Total U.S. independent power producers utility
additions of electronic generating capacity by technology,
1973-2002.
For another view of industry choices, we divided plants built
since 1973 into those recycling and not recycling energy.
Generating plants that recycle energy must be near thermal users
or near sources of industrial waste energy. Figure 6 shows that
only 1.2 percent or 5,000 of the 435,000 megawatts of new
generation built by monopolies over the thirty-year period
recycled energy. We doubt that these choices would be profitable
in a competitive marketplace.
Figure 6. Total generation capacity built by U.S. electric
utilities, 1973-2002.
Independent power producers built 34 percent of their total
capacity as DG plants, at or near users. Figure 7 depicts the
mix of central and distributed power built by IPPs since 1978.
Figure 7. Generation capacity built by U.S. electric IPPs,
1973-2002.
Finally, we estimated the potential generation from the
least-cost options—those plants that recycle industrial process
waste energy. EPA aerometric data and other industry analyses
suggest that U.S. industrial waste energy would power 40,000 to
100,000 megawatts with no incremental fossil fuel and no
incremental pollution. [7] However, EIA plant data show only
2,200 megawatts of recycled industrial energy capacity, 2.2
percent to 5 percent of the potential. [8]
It seems clear that the power industry has made poor choices
that have increased cost and decreased efficiency. These data
show that utilities eschewed least-cost generating technologies,
effectively increasing prices to all customers.
Meeting Expected U.S. Load Growth with Local Generation
Our colleagues built a model to determine the best way to
satisfy projected load growth for any nation over the next two
decades. [9] The model incorporates relevant factors for central
and distributed electric generation technologies, including
projected improvements in cost, efficiency, and availability of
each technology. The model assumes new central generation will
require 100 percent new transmission and distribution and new
decentralized generation will require new T equal to 10 percent
of added generating capacity. The model assumes 9 percent line
losses for central power, equal to U.S. losses for 2002, and 2
percent net line losses for DG power.
Although the future surely includes some mix of central and
decentralized generation, the model calculates the extreme cases
of meeting all load growth with central generation, or meeting
all growth with decentralized generation. Local generation that
recycles energy improves every important outcome versus full
reliance on central generation. Figure 8 compares the extreme
cases. Full reliance on DG for expected U.S. load growth would
avoid $326 billion in capital by 2020, reduce incremental power
costs by $53 billion, NOx by 58 percent, and SO2 by 94 percent.
Full DG lowers carbon dioxide emissions by 49 percent versus
total reliance on new central generation.
Extrapolating U.S. Analysis to the World
We lack the data to run the U.S. model for the world, but have
taken the percentage savings to be directionally correct and
applied them to the IEA load growth projections through 2030.
Detailed analysis by others will undoubtedly refine the
estimates, and there will be some mix of central and
decentralized generation. The analysis shows the extreme cases
to provide guidance.
Figure 9 shows expected world load growth with conventional
central plants that convert 100 units of fuel into 67 units of
wasted energy and 33 units of delivered power. The text at the
bottom reflects IEA’s projected capital cost for 4,800 gigawatts
of new generation, totaling $4.2 trillion. The International
Energy Agency was silent on T, so we used estimates made for the
United States Department of Energy on the all-in cost per kW of
new transmission to forecast $6.6 trillion cost for new wires
and transformers. Assuming U.S. average line losses (which are
significantly lower than developing country line losses), 9
percent of the capacity will be lost, leaving 4,368 gigawatts
delivered to users. To achieve the IEA Reference Case with
central generation, the world must invest $10.8 trillion
capital, roughly $2,500 per kW of delivered capacity.
Figure 9. Conventional central generation flowchart.
Meeting IEA Reference Case load growth with decentralized
generation will lower the need for redundant generation. An
analysis by the Carnegie Mellon Electric Industry Center
suggests building only 78 percent of the 4,800 gigawatts as DG
would provide equal or better reliability. [10] However, in
developing economies, reliability may not be the driver. To be
conservative, we have ignored the potential reduction in
generation due to increased reliability inherent in larger
numbers of smaller plants in the DG case. However, we did reduce
required generation for the DG case to 4,368 GW, since there are
no net line losses.
Figure 10 depicts the process of meeting expected world load
growth with distributed generation. We estimated average capital
costs for decentralized generation of $1,200 per kW, $310 more
capital cost than a kilowatt of new central generation. Even
with 9 percent less DG capacity, the capital costs for
generation increase to $5.2 trillion, $1.0 trillion more than
building central plants. Looking only at generation costs, DG is
not competitive. However, the full decentralized generation case
requires only 430 GW of new T, costing $0.6 trillion, a $6
trillion savings on T. End users receive 4,638 GW in both cases,
but society invests $5 trillion less for the DG case.
Figure 10. Combined heat and power flowchart.
Everyone knows that “you get what you pay for.” What does the
world give up by selecting a $5 trillion cheaper approach to
meet projected electric growth? We extrapolated U.S. analysis to
the IEA Reference Case and found the world would give up the
following by adopting the cheaper DG case:
+ Consume 122 billion fewer barrels of oil equivalent (half of
known Saudi oil reserves)
+ Lost fossil fuel sales of $2.8 trillion
+ Lost medical revenues from air pollution-related illnesses
+ Potentially lost savings if governments opt to supply
electric services to entire population instead of leaving 1.4
billion people without electric access
+ Less global warming due to 50 percent less CO2 emissions.
Recommended Actions
If this analysis survives critical review, then what policy
reforms will steer the power industry toward optimal decisions,
given available technology? We offer two potential approaches,
hoping to start the policy debate.
Comprehensive Reform
Governments guide the electric industry with many rules,
mandates, and limitations that collectively block competition
and innovation, thus causing excessive costs and fuel usage.
Small regulatory changes may nudge the power industry to slight
course corrections, but are unlikely to break the central
generation paradigm and optimize generation.
Immediately eliminating all current barriers to efficiency would
cause the electric power industry to make better decisions. Each
government could examine every rule that affects power
generation and delivery and ask whether the social purpose
behind that rule still exists. Then each state or country could
enact comprehensive legislation that we term the Energy
Regulatory Reform and Tax Act (ERRATA), to correct all of the
mistakes in current law. ERRATA would deregulate all electric
generation and sales, modernize environmental regulations to
induce efficiency, and change taxation to reward efficiency.
[11] Sadly, ERRATA legislation probably will not pass except in
response to deepening environmental and economic pain.
Actionable Reform, National Fossil Fuel Efficiency Standards
A second possible approach simply rewards all fossil efficient
power and penalizes fossil inefficient power. Each government
could enact a Fossil Fuel Efficiency Standard covering all
locally used electricity, regardless of origin. This standard
does not favor fuels, technologies, or participants. Here are
the essential elements:
+ Give all delivered megawatt-hours an equal allowance of
incremental fossil fuel, regardless of age of plant, technology
or ownership. Start with the national average fossil fuel per
MWh for the prior year.
+ Spread allowances over all generation of each owner,
allowing owners to comply by increasing efficiency of existing
plants, deploying new highly efficient plants, or purchasing
fossil allowances from others.
+ Reward plants requiring little or no fossil fuel, such as
solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, and industrial waste energy
recycling, by allowing them to sell fossil fuel credits. [12]
+ Penalize fossil inefficient plants by forcing them to
purchase allowances for each MWh produced.
+ Base allowances on delivered power to incorporate T losses
from central generation.
+ Credit displaced fuel to CHP plants that recycle heat.
+ Force all generators to purchase adequate allowances or
close their plants to ensure that the total allowance trading is
economically neutral.
+ Reduce the fossil fuel allowances per MWh each year
according to a schedule.
+ Adjust the schedule downward each year to correct for growth
in total power delivered, guaranteeing that the total fossil
fuel use will drop.
A Fossil Fuel Efficiency Standard would steer the power industry
toward optimal choices. This will reduce power costs and
emissions, which will improve local standard of living and
improve the competitive position of local industry. Other states
and nations will follow suit.
Conclusion
We have attempted to frame the consequences of meeting energy
load growth with conventional central generation or deploying
decentralized generation that recycles waste energy. The DG case
saves the world $5 trillion in capital investment while reducing
power costs by 40 percent and cutting greenhouse gas emissions
in half. There are interesting implications for worldwide energy
policy if this analysis stands up to critical review.
We hope readers and others will spell out concerns or suggest
corrections so we can collectively improve the analysis of
optimal future power generation. The needed policy changes are
deep and fundamental and require a consensus about the best way
to proceed. Together we might be able to change the way the
world makes heat and power.
Notes
1. The IEA has issued an annual “World Energy Outlook” series
since 1993. The publication projects many facets of the energy
industry thirty years ahead. The projections are based on a
“Reference Scenario that takes into account only those
government policies and measures that had been adopted by
mid-2002. A separate Alternative Scenario assesses the impact of
a range of new energy and environmental policies that the OECD
countries are considering.”
2. Energy Information Administration/Electric Power Monthly,
May 2004.
3. Energy Information Administration/Monthly Energy Review,
June 2004.
4. Joseph Eto, of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,
in a speech to NARUC, says outages cost the U.S. $80 billion per
year. The EPRI Consortium for Electric Infrastructure to Support
a Digital Society (CEIDS), The Cost of Power Disturbances to
Industrial &Digital Economy Companies, June 2001, states power
outages and other power quality disturbances are costing the
U.S. economy more than $119 annually.
5. We assembled historical data for four central generating
technologies—oil and gas-fired thermal plants (Rankine cycle),
coal fired thermal plants, simple-cycle and combined-cycle gas
turbines. Data for each technology and each year include capital
costs per kW, load factor, and efficiency. We assumed a 25-year
life to calculate annual capital amortization and the future
wholesale price per MWh that would yield an 8 percent weighted
average return on capital. Since new central generation requires
new T, we converted estimates of $1260 per kW for T in 2000 and
adjusted for inflation, then assumed a 35-year life for T to
calculate required T charges. EIA did not keep line loss
statistics prior to 1989, so we estimated prior years slightly
below the current 9 percent losses. Summing produces the retail
price needed for power from a central plant using a specific
technology installed in that specific year. Finally, we
converted everything to 2004 dollars.
6. Typical DG plants employ multiple generators with expected
unplanned outages of 2 percent to 3 percent each. The
probability of complete loss of power is found by multiplying
expected unit unplanned outages by each other. Given the
existing 10,286 generators operating in the U.S. that are less
than 20 megawatts of capacity, and the expectation, with
barriers removed, of many DG plants inside every distribution
network, spare grid capacity equal to 10 percent of installed DG
should be more than adequate to cover unplanned outages.
7. Recycled Energy: An Untapped Resource, Casten and Collins,
2002; see www.primaryenergy.com.
8. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review
2002, October 2003.
9. The “Optimizing Heat and Power” model has been adopted by
the World Alliance for Decentralized Energy (WADE) and is being
used by the European Union, Thailand, Nigeria, Canada, Ireland,
and China to ask the best way to satisfy expected load growth.
For model descriptions, contact Michael Brown, Director, at
info@localpower.org.
10. Hisham Zerriffi. Personal communication. See Distributed
Resources and Micro-grids by M. Granger Morgan of the Department
of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University,
Sept. 25, 2003, for detailed analysis of how DG provides
reliability with less spare capacity.
11. See Casten, Thomas R. Turning Off The Heat 1998,
Prometheus Books, chapter 10 for a more complete description of
ERRATA.
12. Producers of electricity are given fossil fuel usage
credits, meaning they are allowed to use a given amount of
fossil fuels corresponding to efficiency, size of unit and other
environmental parameters. Thus, the higher the efficiency of a
company’s unit, the less fossil fuel credits that company needs
to use. The highly efficient plants and generation plants using
a non-fossil fuel energy such as solar, wind, or hydro power
would not need the full allowance and could sell the unused
portion to less efficient fossil fueled plants. Such a system
would provide added economic value to the efficient and
non-fossil fueled plants and economic penalties to the
inefficient fossil fueled plants.
Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms
+ CCGT—Combined-cycle gas turbine—refers to a power plant that
utilizes both the Brayton (gas-turbine) cycle and the Rankine
(steam) cycle. The exhaust from the gas turbine is used to
generate the energy for the Rankine cycle.
+ CHP—Combined heat and power—the simultaneous and
high-efficiency production of heat and electrical power in a
single process.
+ CO2—Carbon dioxide—a gas produced by many organic processes,
including human respiration and the decay or combustion of
animal and vegetable matter.
+ DG—Decentralized/distributed generation—a system in which
electrical power is produced and distributed locally near users,
largely avoiding T.
+ DOE—Department of Energy—the federal agency that oversees
the production and distribution of electricity and other forms
of energy.
+ EIA—Energy Information Administration—the statistical and
data-gathering arm of the Department of Energy.
+ EPA—Environmental Protection Agency—the agency that oversees
and regulates the impact of, among other things, the production
of energy on the environment of the United States.
+ ERRATA—Energy Regulatory Reform and Tax Act—a plan to
deregulate the production and distribution of electricity, to
update environmental laws regarding energy production, and to
alter the existing tax structures.
+ GW—Gigawatt—one billion watts.
+ GWh—Gigawatt hour—the amount of energy available from one
gigawatt in one hour.
+ IEA—International Energy Agency—a twenty-six member union of
national governments with the goal of securing global power
supplies.
+ IPP—Independent power producers—companies that generate
electrical power and provide it wholesale to the power market.
IPPs own and operate their stations as non-utilities and do not
own the transmission lines.
+ KW—Kilowatt—1,000 watts (one watt being the amount of power
necessary to move one kilogram one meter in one second).
+ KWh—Kilowatt hour—the amount of energy available from one
kilowatt in one hour.
+ MW—Megawatt—one million watts.
+ MWh—Megawatt hour—the amount of energy available from one
megawatt in one hour.
+ NOX—Nitrogen oxide—assorted oxides of nitrogen, generally
considered pollutants, that are commonly produced by combustion
reactions.
+ PM10—Particulate matter in the atmosphere that is between
2.5 and 10 micrometers in size.
+ PURPA—Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act—an act of
Congress that was intended to reduce American dependence on
foreign oil through the encouragement of the development of
alternative energy sources and the diversification of the power
industry.
+ T—Transmission and distribution—the means by which
electricity travels from the generating plant(s) to its end
users.
About the Author
Thomas R. Casten is an energy policy analyst, Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer of Primary Energy (Oak Brook, Illinois),
and author of Turning Off the Heat: Why American Must Double
Energy Efficiency to Save Money and Reduce Global Warming
(Prometheus, 1998). E-mail: tcasten@primaryenergy.com.
Brennan Downes is a project engineer at Primary Energy.
Casten adapted this article from his keynote address to the
International Association for Energy Economics in Washington,
D.C., July 10, 2004. A somewhat different version as been
published in the IAEE’s journal The Dialogue.
*****************************************************************
15 Bellona: 60 percent of Severodvinsk shipyards’ equipment worn-out
At a conference named “On conditions and measures to improve
quality of weaponry and military equipment” in Rostov-na-Donu
held from 9th to 10th of January, representatives of the two navy
shipyards and in Severodvinsk, Arkhangelsk region, Sevmash and
Zvezdochka, said that as much as 60 percent of their production
equipment was worn out.
2005-02-16 17:29
The two companies also expressed concern about an ageing work
staff and young specialists moving out of the region. Low
salaries are one of the major problems facing the companies. They
also meet growing competition on the world arms market from
companies in China, India and Latin America, Dvina-Inform
reported.
Publisher: , President:
Information: , Technical contact:
Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box
2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway
*****************************************************************
16 [NukeNet] Duke wants a new nuke
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:53:36 -0800
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
http://www.platts.com/Nuclear/News/1173080.xml
Duke Power to prepare a COL application for new plant
Washington (Platts)--16Feb2005
Duke Power plans to prepare a combined construction permit-operating
license (COL) application for a new nuclear plant, a company official
said today. The company has decided not to pursue an early site permit
and will instead seek site approval in its COL application, said Duke
Power Chief Nuclear Officer Henry "Brew" Barron. He told a Platts
nuclear energy conference today in Washington, D.C. that Duke Power
believes a nuclear plant to be the best option for new baseload
generation. Duke needs the power by around 2015. It plans to make a
selection on the reactor technology and plant site by year-end, Barron
said. The company is looking at sites within the Duke Power service
territory, he said.
_______________________________________________________________________
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] Asbury Park Press article on TFP
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:53:44 -0800
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
Subject: Asbury Park Press article
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 11:11:45 EST
Scientist seeks endorsement of research on cancer near reactors
Hopes backing will lead to funding
Published in the Asbury Park Press 02/17/05
By NICHOLAS CLUNN
MANAHAWKIN BUREAU
WHAT'S NEXT
The state Commission on Radiation Protection will consider testimony
provided
by Joseph Mangano, national coordinator of the Radiation and Public Health
Project, and studies published by his group. It will then formulate an
opinion
about the health project's work. A favorable assessment could help the
group
obtain state grants.
A scientist well-known for collecting baby teeth at the Jersey Shore and
testing them for cancer-causing radiation touted his group's studies on
Wednesday
before a top radiation-protection official who has been skeptical of the
research.
In testimony during a state Commission on Radiation Protection meeting,
Joseph Mangano, national coordinator for the Radiation and Public Health
Project,
tried to convince commission Chairwoman Julie Timins and other
commissioners to
endorse his work, which attempts to link cancer with emissions from nuclear
power plants.
Mangano's request coincides with a push by the federal government to extend
the lives of nuclear reactors and to build new ones.
In July, the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant in Lacey is expected to seek
permission to extend its life by 20 years.
Support from the nine-member volunteer commission, made up of radiation
experts, would improve the research group's chances of receiving state
grants,
Mangano said.
Ultimately, Mangano wants to reveal what causes childhood cancer and bring
peace of mind to parents of children with cancer, such as Brick resident
Marie
Crescenzo.
Her 15-year-old daughter, Katie, was diagnosed with thyroid cancer nearly
two
years ago.
Crescenzo said she asked her doctors what caused her daughter's cancer.
She also combed the Internet searching for answers but found none.
Mangano's
work offers Crescenzo hope, she said, though she does have reservations
about
his group's research.
"I wish he could come up with an answer," she said. "That would be
wonderful."
But the independent research group that brought actor Alec Baldwin and
supermodel Christie Brinkley to Toms River in May 2000 to promote its
Tooth Fairy
Project could have difficulty convincing the commission that it is
legitimate.
About a month after the state mailed its first check — part of a $25,000
grant — to the health project in December 2003, Timins expressed serious
concerns
about the group's research methods in a letter to then-Gov. James E.
McGreevey.
Skepticism continued Wednesday following Mangano's presentation before six
commissioners and other top state radiation officials from the Department
of
Environmental Protection.
Some commissioners suggested that Mangano revise his approach. Commissioner
John J. Mauro said Mangano could obtain solid results by taking a
completely
different route: Pull data related to radiation released by reactors.
"There's a world of analytical material out there," he said.
Commissioners seemed most concerned with the number of teeth that Mangano
tested.
They said scientists would require a much larger sample to regard the work
as
statistically sound.
The research group used 52 teeth in its latest study, which was funded by
the
state grant.
It linked children with cancer and strontium-90, a radioactive isotope
emitted in small doses from reactors.
The study showed children with cancer have more of the isotope in their
baby
teeth than children without cancer.
Mangano acknowledged the sample-size problem and welcomed commissioners'
suggestions.
He said after the meeting that he would like to produce more credible
research, but he needs funding, which is why he addresses the commission.
The commission plans to review Mangano's comments and the health project's
studies. Once it finishes, the commission will draft an opinion on the
group.
Timins said she did not know how long it would take the commission to make
a
decision.
Donald B. Louria, professor and chairman emeritus of the department of
preventive medicine and community health at the University of Medicine and
Dentistry
of New Jersey, Newark, said the state should invest in Mangano.
"I think his hypothesis should be played out," he said. "Has Mangano proved
anything? Absolutely not. But he deserves support."
Oyster Creek officials disagree. Plant spokeswoman Gina Scala said the
commission should look at the many studies refuting the connection among
strontium-90, reactors and cancer before reaching a decision about
Mangano's work.
"We would hope that they would look at the entire picture and come to the
same decision as they came to when they wrote to Governor McGreevey," she
said.
Mangano said he received an opportunity to appear before the commission
after
Edith Gbur, president of Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch, a citizens group that
wants Oyster Creek closed immediately, asked state officials to hear him.
Gbur told commissioners Wednesday that they should support the health
project.
Livingston resident Jane Furst and her 14-year-old son, Cory, also urged
commissioners to see value in Mangano's research.
Doctors diagnosed Cory with lung and liver cancer when he was 19 months
old.
Chemotherapy treatments caused him permanent hearing loss.
Dressed in a black suit, white shirt and tie, Cory asked the commission to
help find out what caused his sickness by backing Mangano.
"If there is a relationship between strontium-90 and cancer, then we must
shut down the nuclear power plants producing it," he said.
--
Coalition for Peace and Justice
UNPLUG Salem Campaign; 321 Barr Ave, Linwood
NJ 08221; 609-601-8583; cell 609-742-0982
ncohen12@comcast.net; http://www.unplugsalem.org
http://www.coalitionforpeaceandjustice.org
"A time comes when silence is betrayal.
Even when pressed by the demands of
inner truth, men do not easily assume
the task of opposing their government's
policy, especially in time of war.
Nor does the human spirit move without
great difficulty against all the apathy
of conformist thought, within one's own
bosom and in the surrounding world."
- Martin Luther King Jr.
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/05
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
Attachment Converted: "c:\program files\eudora\attach\attachment664.dat"
*****************************************************************
18 Bellona: Leningrad NPP’s reactor no.3 shutdown for repairs
On February 12, the Leningrad NPP's specialists shut down unit
no.3 for the scheduled repairs, which should be completed by July
1, Interfax reported.
2005-02-16 18:29
It is planned to change more than 200 fuel channels and certify
the piping system, said the plant’s representative. At the moment
the Leningrad NPP is operating three units with 1,000 MW capacity
each.
2005-01-12 Leningrad NPP
Turbo generator shut down at Leningrad NPP
2004-12-07 Leningrad NPP
First reactor unit at Leningrad NPP shut down again
Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge
Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact:
webmaster@bellona.no Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22
38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway
*****************************************************************
19 DesMoinesRegister.com: Alliant powers plan to sell nuclear plant
Economy
Duane Arnold, commissioned in 1974, generates enough electricity
to power about 432,000 homes .
By
REGISTER BUSINESS WRITER
February 17, 2005
Alliant Energy will contact potential buyers for the Duane Arnold
Energy Center by the end of the month to start the process of
selling Iowa's only nuclear power plant, a company executive said
Wednesday.
But if no buyer is found, the company intends to decommission and
dismantle the plant when its license expires in 2014, said Tom
Aller, president of the Iowa division of Madison, Wis.-based
Alliant. Bids will be due in mid-June, and a bid winner would be
determined by June 30. Aller said he hopes a sale will receive
regulatory approval by year's end.
Alliant announced in December it would sell its 70 percent stake
in the facility, near Palo. Aller said Alliant did not want to
continue the expense and financial risk of continuing to own a
nuclear power plant.
"The risk reward relative to our customers and our shareholders,
we simply weren't big enough to do it," he said.
Energy analysts say a sale makes sense because ownership and
management of nuclear plants nationwide is becoming concentrated
in the hands of several large energy companies specializing in
nuclear operations.
Central Iowa Power Cooperative, owner of 20 percent, and Corn
Belt Power Cooperative, owner of 10 percent, announced earlier
this month they also would sell their shares in the plant. The
three electricity providers have hired Concentric Energy Advisors
as auction manager and financial advisor.
Duane Arnold was commissioned in 1974. It generates enough
electricity to power about 432,000 homes . Alliant's 2003 annual
report put the plant's book value at $228.9 million as of Dec.
31, 2003 .
Aller said Alliant is selling the plant this year to give the new
owner enough time to relicense the facility. But after the plant
is sold, Aller said, Alliant wants to continue buying power from
the new owner at least through 2014.
Copyright © 2004, The Des Moines Register. Use of this site
*****************************************************************
20 toledoblade.com: NRC plans meeting on Davis-Besse
Article published Thursday, February 17, 2005
OAK HARBOR, Ohio - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
Davis-Besse oversight panel will meet Tuesday for the first time
since Dec. 6.
The meeting will be from 2 to 5 p.m. in the plant's
administration building, 5501 North State Rt. 2. The forum, held
monthly until recently, provides area residents an update of
plant inspections.
The oversight panel was formed weeks after Davis-Besse's old
reactor head was found to be so badly corroded in 2002 that it
nearly blew apart. FirstEnergy replaced the massive steel lid
with a nearly identical head built in the 1970s for a nuclear
plant in Midland, Mich., that was never finished.
The federal regulatory agency allowed Davis-Besse to resume
operation 11 months ago following a two-year shutdown related to
that issue and numerous others.
© 2005 The Blade. The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St.,
Toledo, OH 43660 , (419) 724-6000
*****************************************************************
21 APP.COM: Residents ask A-plant what's on their minds
Asbury Park Press Online
Published in the Asbury Park Press 02/17/05 By MICHAEL AMSEL
TOMS RIVER BUREAU
MANCHESTER -- Elvira High readily admits she is "a little leery"
about the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant in Lacey.
"It is an aging structure, and I am not totally convinced it's
safe," said High, 66, of Manchester. "I know they have a lot of
new technology, but I have some concerns about the people working
there. Are they really doing their jobs? Have they been tested
psychologically? These are some of the questions that I have."
High had a chance to ask such questions Wednesday night at a
forum sponsored by AmerGen, owner of the 650-megawatt reactor.
The forum, part of an ongoing series throughout Ocean County, was
designed to calm fears surrounding nuclear power through
education.
About 20 plant employees were at tables dedicated to certain
topics, ready to explain what it takes to operate and protect the
Route 9 facility.
Wayne Romberg, the plant spent-fuel manager, said the events of
Sept. 11, 2001, have brought a lot of attention to security
issues.
"People are worried about terrorist attacks," Romberg said. "It
is important that we get out the message that our plant is safe
and reliable. We have spent over $30 million upgrading the
security. I can't get into specifics except to say that all the
barriers have been beefed up."
Councilman Robert Pigott attended the forum and asked some
questions about security.
"They have assured me that all the safeguards are in place and
tests are being conducted regularly," he said. "I'm here because
I am concerned about mothers and children and seniors in our
township. Am I totally convinced of the plant's safety? Well, not
completely. But I feel a little better than I did before I came
in."
AmerGen is planning three more forums in Ocean County, but the
sites and dates have not been determined, plant spokeswoman Gina
G. Scala said.
"We are aware that people have concerns about emergency planning
and evacuations," Scala said.
Michael Amsel (732) 557-5733 or mamsel@app.com
Copyright © 1997-2005 IN Jersey.
*****************************************************************
22 TimesDaily.com Browns Ferry plant reactor back on line after breaker trips
Thursday, February 17, 2005
The Associated Press
The Unit 3 reactor at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in Athens
was back on line Thursday after an electrical problem forced it
into an immediate shutdown Friday afternoon.
Craig Beasley, a spokesman for Browns Ferry, said the plant
returned to power Tuesday night and is being tested as it
resumes full operation. Unit 3 was given a rapid shutdown signal
around 4:30 p.m. Friday when an electrical breaker tripped and
disconnected the unit's electricity generation from the
Tennessee Valley Authority's power grid.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission classified the event as a
"non-emergency."
TVA said Unit 3, which was also forced to shut down in November
after a lightning strike, shut down without incident as all
safety systems worked properly.
Beasley said the public was never in danger and no one was
injured.
TVA's description of the event provided to the NRC said a
breaker tripped after another piece of equipment was installed
before a trip cutout switch was put in place.
Information from: The Huntsville Times
Tuscaloosa News| The Gadsden Times
© Copyright 2003 Times Daily. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
23 SABCnews.com: SA will not appeal nuclear plant suspension
South African Broadcasting Corporation Copyright ©
February 17, 2005, 19:30
South Africa's department of environmental affairs said today it
will not appeal a court decision suspending a government plan to
develop a highly advanced nuclear power reactor near Cape Town.
Instead, it said it will address the court's concerns, which
include allowing environmental groups more time to make their
views heard.
The ruling last month by the Cape High Court followed objections
from environmentalists to the proposed multi-billion rand
project and a court challenge from lobby group Earthlife Africa
in November.
The pebble bed modular reactor (PBMR) is an advanced design that
claims to dramatically improve safety and efficiency, but
environmentalists say it is unsafe and creates excessive
radioactive waste.
The government had given power utility Eskom the go-ahead to
build a pilot reactor near the site of its only existing nuclear
power plant to help meet rising demand for power, forecast to
outstrip supply within three years. But the court ruled that
environmental groups must be given further opportunity to
comment on the project.
"The department of environmental affairs...today announced its
intention not to appeal the decision of the Cape High Court,"
the department said in a statement.
"The court decision stands and environmental groups will be
given more time to comment on the project. But the PBMR project
is still on track," said J.P. Louw, the environmental affairs
spokesperson. But the department believes the current
environmental impact assessment process is too cumbersome and
that new, streamlined regulations it hopes to implement soon
will remove some of the hurdles that stand in the way of big
projects.
About 6% of the country's power output is generated through the
existing Koeberg nuclear plant, while 88% is sourced by coal. -
Reuters
*****************************************************************
24 [du-list] Privatising nuclear clean-up risks public safety
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:13:05 -0800
Privatising nuclear clean-up risks public safety
a.. 19:00 16 February 2005
b.. Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition
c.. Rob Edwards
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7011
Related Articles
a.. Washington diary
b.. 25 December 2004
c.. Fury at UK's plans to ship hot waste out to Kyrgyzstan
d.. 25 September 2004
e.. US nuclear clean-up carries major risks
f.. 25 July 2004
Web Links
a.. Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee
b.. Health and Safety Commission
c.. Patricia Hewitt, Department of Trade and Industry
The warning comes in documents compiled by the UK government's nuclear
safety advisers released to New Scientist under the new Freedom of
Information Act. They reveal "serious concerns" about the plans, which will
allow private companies to tidy up the radioactive mess left by 60 years of
nuclear power. Advisers fear that financial pressures will encourage the
companies to cut corners and will increase the risk of accidents.
Work is about to begin on dismantling and cleaning up reactors, waste
stores and contaminated land at 20 sites across the UK. The government
wants the management of at least half the sites to be put out to
competitive tender before the end of 2008. The aim is to drive down costs
by allowing private companies to bid against the state organisations that
currently run the sites.
But two expert bodies that advise government ministers - the Nuclear Safety
Advisory Committee (NuSAC) and the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) - are
worried that competition will harm safety. "Pressure to prepare for
competitive bidding in the very short term could compromise safe
operation," one memo warns. It argues that managers and workers anxious
about their jobs would pay less attention to safety. There is also a danger
that in a complicated system of parent companies and contractors profit
could come before safety.
The memo was sent by NuSAC in July 2004 to the chair of the HSC, Bill
Callaghan, with a request to make ministers aware of the concerns. It was
not until November that Callaghan wrote privately to Patricia Hewitt, the
trade and industry secretary. The target of putting the management of 10
nuclear sites out to tender within three years "would be extremely
challenging, if not impossible, if sites are to ensure priority is given to
continuing effective management and control of safety," Callaghan wrote. It
was "regrettable", he said, that regulators had not been consulted on
whether the target was "practically and legally achievable".
Ambitious competition
Hewitt's reply in December stuck to the government's plan to create a
"dynamic and open market" for nuclear decommissioning, though she hinted
that the timetable could be renegotiated if it really threatened safety.
"The experience of the US market suggests that ambitious competition
schedules do not lead to a reduction in safety," she insisted.
Ian Jackson, an ex-nuclear inspector for the government's Environment
Agency echoes NuSAC's safety fears. He points out that sites with different
owners and managers will create "genuine risks" for safety regulators. He
adds that the US experience has not been without problems. Its clean-up
programme was strongly criticised by a review set up by President George W
Bush in 2002 for "failing to deliver", and has since been revamped.
NuSAC also expressed concern about growing pressures on the government's
Nuclear Installations Inspectorate. The minutes of a NuSAC meeting in July
reveal that an unpublicised 18-month work to rule by inspectors has led to
a 15% reduction in site inspections.
After a failed recruitment campaign last year, the inspectorate is now 14
short of its full complement of 179 inspectors. "Prolonged reduction of
inspection will undermine our ability to effectively monitor the safety
performance of the nuclear industry," says Laurence Williams, who recently
quit as chief inspector.
----------
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 2/14/05
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own computers.
At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/EA3HyD/3MnJAA/79vVAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
25 [DU-WATCH] Aussies - DU doco on SBS tomorrow night
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:24:25 -0600 (CST)
The Cutting Edge 15th Feb at 8.30pm
The Doctor, The Depleted Uranium and the Dying Children
Uranium munitions were used for the first time by US and British Allied
Forces in the 1991 Gulf War. Servicemen who saw them in action were very
impressed. When a depleted uranium (DU) shell hits a tank, it penetrates
the steel armour as if it were paper at the same time part of the
uranium round vaporises and ignites inside the tank, causing the
ammunition present to explode and kill the crew. This double action is
what makes the weapon so appealing to military strategists.
The Doctor, the Depleted Uranium and the Dying Children, screening on
SBS Television on Tuesday, 15 February at 8.30 pm in the Cutting Edge
timeslot, follows two men, Professor Siegwart-Horst Gunther, a former
colleague of Albert Schweitzer, and Tedd Weyman, deputy director of the
Uranium Medical Research Centre in Toronto, Canada. They travel to Iraq
to search for evidence that DU ammunition was used by the ton in the
recent war, as they are convinced that DU is responsible for Gulf War
Syndrome that has undermined the health of hundreds of thousands of
soldiers and civilians. However, the USA and British governments claim
there is no evidence that uranium ammunition is to blame for Gulf War
Syndrome which has now been diagnosed in more than 150,000 war veterans.
The Doctor, the Depleted Uranium and the Dying Children also hears from
two veterans of the first Gulf War Kenny Duncan and Jenny Moore, who
describe their exposure to DU weapons and the congenital abnormalities
of their children. The program also contains an interview with Prof.
Asak Duracovic who spent twelve years working for the US Department of
Defense, studying soldiers suffering from Gulf War Syndrome. When he
publicly voiced the belief that uranium ammunition was to blame, the
Pentagon sacked him.
In October 1991, Prof. Gunther was invited to review the health system
in the wake of the UN embargo. The paediatric hospitals were
overcrowded, infections were rife, and children were dying of
malnutrition. From 1991 to 1993, I encountered disorders which I hadnt
seen in 40 years of working in Iraq: a veritable epidemic of leukaemias,
congenital fissures and other deformities and disorders. The
deformities reminded the professor of those seen after the Chernobyl
disaster.For saussies
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Give the gift of life to a sick child.
Support St. Jude Children's Research Hospital's 'Thanks & Giving.'
http://us.click.yahoo.com/3iazvD/6WnJAA/xGEGAA/Sj.0lB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
[Brought to you by HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK]
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-watch/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
du-watch-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
26 Interfax: Oslo hosts conference on radiation security in Russian North
Interfax.com Text version Site map
Feb 17 2005 5:27PM
OSLO/ST. PETERSBURG (Interfax) - Representatives of several
countries and international organizations have gathered in Oslo
to discuss ways of helping Russia dismantle radioactive power
generating units used by the military that are potentially
dangerous radiation sources in the northern part of the country.
"The aim of the meeting is to consider ways of stepping up and
broadening efforts already being taken by Norway with the
assistance of other countries, because Norway's opportunities
are limited, not so much for financial as for organizational
reasons," a Norwegian diplomat said.
© 1991-2004 Interfax
All rights reserved
News and other data on this web site are provided for
information purposes only, and are not intended for
republication or redistribution. Republication or redistribution
of Interfax content, including by framing or similar means, is
expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of
Interfax.
*****************************************************************
27 AU ABC: Veterans Affairs establishes beryllium hotline.
17/02/2005. ABC News Online
"Australian Broadcasting Corporation Online">
The Department of Veterans Affairs has set up a telephone
hotline service for former Australian Defence Force members
concerned about beryllium exposure.
It says people can use the number to register for its
information service so they can receive advice about their case.
The department says in rare cases, exposure to beryllium dust
which was produced by hydraulic paint stripping tools, can lead
to the development of chronic lung disease.
The hotline number is 1800 000 644.
(AFP), APTN, Reuters, CNN and
*****************************************************************
28 WVLT VOLUNTEER TV Knoxville, TN: Keeping Nuclear Material Safe
February 17, 2005
Oak Ridge
Top US leaders say even though there have been no attacks in the
US lately, it doesn't mean it'll stay that way. Defense leaders
say terror groups may be planning new violence with weapons of
mass destruction if they can get them.
US leaders say sleeper groups have been in place in the United
States for years, waiting for orders to attack.
That message is also turning heads here at home and getting
similar reactions from officials in Oak Ridge.
Leaders there say they are always on alert for possible
terrorist plots.
Volunteer TV’s Eric Waddell joins us with reaction from the
Atomic City.
By the nature of the work done in Oak Ridge there are many
materials, radioactive and chemical which potential terrorists
could have interest in getting their hands on for malicious
reasons, words that leaders here in Oak Ridge have heard.
New warnings from leaders of the nation's intelligence community
about continued terrorist threats to the nation’s homeland have
not caused security changes in Oak Ridge.
But leaders say their words highlight the need for strong
security measures, which they say are in place.
"We continue to maintain a cautious security posture in Oak
Ridge, we always do. We follow the national lead for what the
security level is. We want to make sure our security forces are
on point and watching materials that we have, the facilities we
have," says Gerald Boyd, DOE Manager Oak Ridge.
Bechtel Jacobs handles and prepares for shipment radioactive
waste materials in Oak Ridge. They tell us that there are
different levels of security, both visible and invisible.
"We protect the materials on the site and traveling on the
roads. We can’t say anything specific. But they are well
protected," says Dennis Hill, Bechtel Jacobs.
After the materials leave Bechtel Jacobs' grounds security
switches back to the federal government. Several agencies work
together to keep it secure.
"We always follow the rules and regulations DOT lays out for us
and any guidelines from DOT or Homeland Security, we continue to
do this," adds Boyd.
All shipments in and out of Oak Ridge are subject to rules set
by the US Department of Transportation.
Boyd added that Oak Ridge is on the frontlines in developing
technology to fight terrorism.
In particularly in the areas of radiological bio-chemical
detection, a very important tool to keep you safe from some of
the terrorist's most lethal weapons.
Copyright 2001 - 2005 WorldNow and WVLT VOLUNTEER TV,
*****************************************************************
29 UK The Times: Sellafield's problem is not with science, but with public perception
February 18, 2005
Safety and numbers
Nuclear power is the cleanest available form of mass energy
generation, producing no greenhouse gas emissions. Reactor design
has improved, as has the technology of nuclear waste disposal.
Greater recourse to nuclear power is a necessary ingredient of
strategies to mitigate global warming. The ambitious emissions
targets set for Britain by Labour are, as it has yet to admit,
extremely unlikely to be met without a decision to replace at
least some of this country’s ageing reactors.
Public confidence in every aspect of the civil nuclear sector is
thus a vital national interest — and that means confidence not
only about safety, but about security. Al-Qaeda records in
Afghanistan showed that its leaders would have used weapons of
mass destruction, had they had them. Cast-iron anti-theft
safeguards are required, and nowhere more than in the nuclear
reprocessing industry.
When the public learns, therefore, that 30kg of plutonium are
listed as “unaccounted for” in the annual audit of the British
Nuclear Group’s vast nuclear reprocessing complex at Sellafield,
it is natural to assume that this is a euphemism for “lost” —
that fissile material could fall, or have fallen, into dangerous
hands. Reprocessed plutonium is not necessarily portable,
existing not only in metal, but also in oxide powder and liquid
nitrate forms, but that does not make it any easier to convince
people that this is an inherently untroubling “accounting
exercise”. Nor does it cut much ice that this quantity is only
“0.1 per cent of throughput”, or that the apparent discrepancy is
well within the 1 per cent ceiling permitted by Euratom. The
thought that Sellafield might be “allowed” a 300kg leeway of
error, enough for several dozen crude bombs, must naturally
appal.
The point, however, is that the “unaccounted for” plutonium is
not missing in the way common sense suggests. It probably never
existed in the first place. Sellafield’s 30 kilos represent the
difference between the quantity of plutonium calculated by
nuclear physicists to exist inside the spent fuel rods brought
to Sellafield for reprocessing, and the actual plutonium yield.
Plutonium is man-made, created when neutrons hit uranium atoms.
The difficulty of measuring how much plutonium a spent fuel rod
contains is that not every neutron hits a uranium atom and, even
if hit, not every uranium atom turns into plutonium. Before
reprocessing, nuclear physicists estimate the quantity of
plutonium using factors such as the rod’s weight, the quantity
of uranium burnt, how long the rod was in a reactor and where it
was located, and operational intensity. They can do with with
almost, but not total, accuracy. The aim must always be to
reduce the margin of error.
Confidence requires openness — more of it than Britain’s nuclear
industry has been known for in the past. One problem with BNG’s
conversion to candour, as it has found this week, is that the
science of nuclear reprocessing is not widely understood. The
best course is not less information, but more. That is a
commitment the Government should share with industry.
Copyright The Times - timesonline.co.uk
*****************************************************************
30 allAfrica.com: Kenya: Lobby Demands Report On Waste Dumping
The East African Standard (Nairobi)
Posted to the web February 17, 2005
Patrick Beja
Nairobi
Researchers have petitioned the Government to make known
findings of a probe on the reported toxic waste dumping in North
Eastern Province.
Northern Kenya Human Rights lobby demanded that the National
Environment Management Authority and Ministry of Environment and
Natural Resources carry out comprehensive and transparent
investigations.
Chairman Mr Aden Barre Dualle said yesterday in Mombasa that
research by the lobby indicated that waste allegedly dumped by
some American companies contained nuclear wastes.
Dualle said the lobby has a lot of information on how the
dumping was done and the impact on the residents.
"We have interviewed security guards and workers of one of the
companies and they have given us useful clues. They said they
are always told to keep a distance when the dumping is being
done at night," Dualle said.
He said the firms are not involved in oil exporation as earlier
claimed.
"We are not going to allow anybody to tamper with samples from
the sites that is why the area is being guarded 24-hours," he
said.
"We want transparency so that the culprits can be made to
compensate those affected," Dualle added.
He said the lobby was also investigating claims that a former
minister in the Kanu regime bought the land and leased it to the
Americans for dumping purposes.
The sites in question are Modica, Shanta Abak and Amuma in
Garissa District, Gal, Adow and Arbajahan in Wajir and Elwak in
Mandera district.
The residents told The Standard that in the 1980s deep trenches
were dug in the area and waste dumped in them before they were
covered with concrete slabs.
Dualle said going by records at the Garissa General Hospital,
cases of cancer have been on the increase in the last 10 years.
"Local residents fear they have been exposed to grave danger and
should be compensated," Dualle said.
He claimed tuberculosis (TB) and malaria, which were once the
leading diseases in the province had been overtaken by cancer.
"There are many cases of cancer of the throat and we attribute
it to the toxins emmitted from the dumping sites," Dualle said.
He claimed animals were dying in large numbers and appealed to
Environment minister Kalonzo Musyoka and Nobel Laureate Prof
Wangari Maathai to intervene.
Copyright © 2005 The East African Standard. All rights
*****************************************************************
31 The Herald: Concerns for public safety raised over clean-up of nuclear sites
Web Issue 2205 February 17 2005
ALAN MacDERMID
GOVERNMENT nuclear safety advisers have expressed misgivings
about the privatisation of the decommissioning of 20 atomic
power plants.
They have warned in a series of memos that public safety may be
at risk from corner-cutting if tenders are awarded to firms with
the lowest bids.
One of the largest clean-up jobs in the UK will be at Dounreay,
in Caithness, expected to cost £2.7bn. Other Scottish sites
involved are Hunterston A and Chapelcross.
Concerns of experts from the Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee
(NuSAC) and the Health and Safety Commission are expressed in
documents being published today by New Scientist magazine under
freedom of information legislation.
Work is due to begin soon to decommission sites across the UK.
Responsibility for the clean-up will pass on April 1 from
British Nuclear Fuels and the UK Atomic Energy Authority to the
National Decommissioning authority quango.
A memo to the HSC from NuSAC last July said: "Pressure to
prepare for competitive bidding in the very short term could
compromise safe operation."
Bill Callaghan, chairman of the HSC, then wrote to Patricia
Hewitt, the trade and industry secretary in November, saying the
target of having private firms tendering to manage 10 nuclear
sites within three years would "be extremely challenging, if not
impossible, if sites are to ensure priority is given to
continuing effective management and control of safety".
A spokesman at Dounreay said: "We are committed first and
foremost to the highest standards of safety and environmental
protection, and seek to deliver decommissioning in a way that
upholds these high standards."
The concerns were revealed as it emerged the plant's operator
may be prosecuted for off-site pollution caused by rogue
radioactive releases. The UKAEA has been reported to the
procurator-fiscal at Wick after a Scottish Environment
Protection Agency inquiry.
Copyright © Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights
*****************************************************************
32 Las Vegas SUN: Domenici urges support for Yucca
February 16, 2005
By Benjamin Grove SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- The Senate's top advocate for Yucca Mountain
today urged nuclear energy industry leaders to not waver in
their support of the proposed nuclear waste repository.
Domenici told about 200 industry insiders gathered for a
conference here that "we don't want the industry to stop being
positive" about Yucca. "Despite difficulties and concerns about
whether it ultimately will work, we still have to move step by
step toward Yucca Mountain," Domenici said.
Domenici's comments came as some industry insiders have
reportedly distanced themselves subtly from a long-standing
industry and Energy Department contention that the future
construction of new U.S. nuclear power plants was tied in part
to the construction of Yucca Mountain. Nuclear utilities and
investors want certainty that the government has a permanent
strategy for dealing with the waste piling up at the nation's
nuclear reactors, industry and government leaders have said.
Moving forward with Yucca Mountain "will remove what has been a
major impediment to the construction of new nuclear plants in
this country," outgoing Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said
last month.
But legal and budgetary setbacks have slowed Yucca for years,
and a federal court ruling last year that threw out a radiation
standard for Yucca shrouded the project in more uncertainty.
The setback came at a time when the industry is enjoying
renewed interest in nuclear power by the Bush administration and
Congress. That has spurred specific industry plans for
construction of a new generation of nuclear plants.
Industry officials seeking to capitalize on the momentum now
say they can forge ahead with plans for new plants despite
uncertainties with Yucca.
"As long as people perceive that there is progress on Yucca
Mountain, there is definite interest and consideration for new
plants," said Mitch Singer, spokesman for the Nuclear Energy
Institute, the leading industry lobby group.
Other industry leaders have said there are other waste storage
options as the Yucca opening date slips further into the future,
including an as-yet unlicensed private temporary waste storage
site in Utah.
Industry leaders have not backed off their stance that Yucca is
important to the industry's future, Singer said.
But Yucca is far from being a major hurdle to the construction
of new plants, he said. Industry leaders are now more focused on
issues like market factors and government subsidies, he said.
After his speech, Domenici said he had not given the industry a
pep talk on Yucca to bolster their vocal support for it.
Industry leaders have always been and continue to be the most
vocal advocates of Yucca, he said.
"The industry is vitally interested in Yucca Mountain,"
Domenici said.
*****************************************************************
33 Las Vegas SUN: Columnist Jeff German: Feds show Nevada no quarter
Jeff German's column appears Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Fridays and
Sundays in the Sun. Reach him at german@lasvegassun.comor (702)
259-4067.
Nevada isn't being viewed with much kindness in the nation's
capital these days.
We are being asked to store the nation's deadly nuclear waste
at Yucca Mountain and send back $700 million from land sales to
bail out the deficit-ridden national treasury.
There is no clearer example of our poor standing in Washington
than the ludicrous decision-making process over the look of our
state quarter, which goes into circulation next year.
Every state gets its own quarter as part of a special 10-year
U.S. Treasury Department program approved by Congress in 1999.
Each federally minted coin is supposed to capture the essence
of the state. But in Nevada's case, the Treasury Department made
sure that wouldn't happen early in the design process when it
banned any references to gambling.
So Nevada officials came up with five historical and wilderness
concepts -- all hardly reflecting our way of life today -- for
the U.S. Mint's artists to sketch.
One design drawn up in Washington features an old-time miner,
another some wild horses and a third a patch of lazy sagebrush.
Ultimately, Nevada will make the final choice, however boring
and unrealistic it will be.
The design that won over two influential Washington panels
advising the Treasury Department says all we need to know about
how we are perceived inside the Beltway.
It shows an oversized bighorn sheep hovering over a small
mountain range with the state motto,"All for Our Country," off
to the side.
The mountain range is supposed to be the majestic Sierra
Nevadas up north, but cynics swear it looks more like the
diminutive Yucca Mountain, 90 miles from Las Vegas, where the
Bush administration wants to bury the high-level nuclear waste.
Whoever created this sketch for us in Washington must have had
a relative working for the U.S. Energy Department.
The only thing missing is an illustration of a cask filled with
radioactive waste.
One look at the design and you can't help but notice the sorry
symbolism.
This is the Nevada the federal government wants us to be -- the
one that will blindly accept its destiny (for our country, of
course) as the dumping ground for the deadliest substance known
to man.
But the good news is that the design has no chance of actually
landing on the back of Nevada's quarter when the selection
process mercifully comes to an end.
Kathy Besser, chief of staff to Nevada Treasurer Brian
Krolicki, says state officials saw the obvious flaws in the
bighorn rendering and made it clear they wanted some changes.
The new design, which the two advisory panels apparently didn't
see, features a much smaller bighorn and enhances the mountains
to make them look like the Sierra Nevadas. It also replaces the
words "All for our Country" with "Silver State."
But this brings little relief to a skewed selection process
that has become a complete waste of time and money.
Maybe we should tell Washington we've had enough of this
nonsense and emblazon the quarter with the Revolutionary War
slogan, "Don't Tread on Me."
*****************************************************************
34 Las Vegas SUN: Despite Yucca uncertainty, industry plans new plants
By Suzanne Struglinski SUN WASHINGTON
BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- Uncertainty on the Yucca Mountain federal nuclear
waste repository will not stop the nuclear industry from
planning to build new plants, industry experts said at a
conference Wednesday.
As Congress starts a fifth year of debate on an energy bill,
the industry, with support from the White House, will tout its
emission-free process of producing electricity while questions
still linger on what to do with highly radioactive used fuel.
Nuclear power now generates 20 percent of the country's
electricity, but as energy demands continue to grow, the
industry feels the time has come for its share of power
production to grow with it. A new nuclear power plant has not
been ordered since 1978.
Former Nuclear Regulatory Chairman Richard Meserve said he sees
no reason plans for new nuclear power plants should be put on
hold until the repository opens. He said the industry knows how
to manage the used fuel that exists already and can safely store
it until a solution is found.
"We should not make Yucca Mountain or any licensed repository a
precondition for the idea of new construction," Meserve said.
"This is a solvable problem. It is not an impossible problem."
In 1987 the Energy Department promised the nuclear industry it
would take its used fuel to Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest
of Las Vegas. Numerous problems have thrown the schedule off,
and by the department's latest estimate, waste may not move
there until 2012, 14 years after its initial deadline.
Nevada's congressional delegation and state officials strongly
oppose the repository and will continue to fight it through
lawsuits and objections as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
reviews it license. The state declares the project near death,
particularly after it won a federal court case that threw out a
key radiation standard last year. The Energy Department says it
will move forward, planning to submit a license application by
the end of the year.
Yucca critics are not necessarily against nuclear power, but do
not believe the department's plan to store waste in the mountain
is the right idea. Nuclear critics point to safety risks and
security problems at nuclear power plants and would rather not
see new ones open.
But Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, told the conference that the
time has come for new nuclear plants and the waste issue needs
to be resolved.
"We think its an issue that's got to move forward," Craig told
the Sun after his speech at the conference Wednesday.
Craig said he has never been frightened by geologic disposal,
and pointed out that President Bush "didn't lose Nevada" in last
year's election. Bush campaigned that he would allow the court's
to rule on the matter while Democratic challenger Sen. John
Kerry, D-Mass., vowed to outright kill the project.
"It's not a sea change, but it's a soft signal," Craig said.
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton,
R-Texas, announced his intention Wednesday to introduce a bill
to allow Congress to apply ratepayer money directly to the
repository without hurting other federal programs. The bill made
it through the committee last year, but did not move beyond that.
Craig told the conference he expects Congress will get an
energy bill done this year that will include a "valuable nuclear
component." The industry would like to see financial incentives,
an extension of the federal insurance program and other benefits
included in the bill to help make building new plants easier.
"We will build a new plant when the conditions are right," said
Marilyn Kray, Exelon Nuclear's vice president of project
development. Kray who also serves as president of NuStart Energy
Development, a collection of eight companies exploring ways to
build a new nuclear power plant.
Kray said new plant plants include payments into the Nuclear
Waste Fund that is set aside to pay for the repository. The
delays in opening Yucca leave some uncertainties for onsite
storage, eventual closure and other costs in a potential budget,
but nothing that would stop them from looking into where the
industry wants to go in the future.
*****************************************************************
35 Deseret news: Matheson gets no answer on Moab tailings
[deseretnews.com]
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Federal law says waste must move, not be capped
By Jerry Spangler Deseret Morning News
WASHINGTON — Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah,
wants to know if U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Samuel
Bodman is going to adhere to existing federal law and remove
uranium mill tailings from the Atlas Mill site next to Moab
rather than cap them in place, but he received no promises
Wednesday.
"I can't comment on what alternatives are being
considered," Bodman told Matheson during a House Science
Committee meeting. He added that the department will not
knowingly violate federal law. But "there may be disagreement as
to what the law means."
"I encourage you folks to consider what the law says,"
said Matheson, who was irritated that a DOE environmental impact
statement even includes the option of leaving the tailings at
their current site in direct contradiction to the federal law.
The law in reference is Public Law 106-398, passed in
1999 as part of a defense reauthorization bill, which
specifically says the Moab tailings must be removed from their
current site, which is now eroding into the Colorado River
Numerous scientific studies, including one by the
prestigious National Academy of Sciences, have maintained that
the current location is unstable, and the radioactive waste
could threaten 25 million downstream users. Other studies show
the radioactivity has already begun to contaminate the
underground water supply used by Moab residents.
Grand County Councilwoman Joette Langianese was in
Washington, D.C., this week meeting with DOE officials about the
mill tailings. Although Bodman did not hear what she had hoped
to hear — that the tailings would be moved — she did come out of
her meetings with other DOE officials encouraged and optimistic.
"Those tailings should not be on the river. That much is
obvious to everyone," she said. "No matter how many studies you
do, the bottom line is they have to be moved."
DOE officials, she said, cannot mistake where state and
local officials stand on the issue, and the agency is under
increasing pressure from elected officials in Arizona, Nevada
and California — all states that rely on the Colorado River for
drinking water — to remove the tailings.
Langianese also met with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and
Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., who expressed concern about capping the
wastes.
On Tuesday, Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. joined in the
opposition, writing to the DOE that "good science and good sense
tell us the tailings must be moved."
Friday is the last day for public comment on the draft
environmental impact statement, which is unusual because it does
not lay out a preferred solution to the mill tailings. Rather,
it lists the different alternatives.
Only three alternatives are given serious consideration.
The cheapest, capping the tailings on site, would cost $166
million.
"No one has been able to explain to my satisfaction why
the Draft Environmental Impact statement issued by DOE considers
alternatives other than moving this pile," said Matheson.
"That's not what the law says. That's not what the
federally-mandated studies conclude. That is not what is
required to halt the groundwater pollution and the threat to
humans and the environment."
Another alternative is to ship the waste by rail to the
Klondike Flat area north of Moab where they would be buried on
state lands. Yet another is to ship it to Blanding, about 70
miles south, where it could be reprocessed at the White Mesa
Mill. Those options range in cost from $329 million to $464
million.
It is apparent from President Bush's 2006 budget request
the administration is gearing up for some kind of action. The
2005 budget had appropriated about $8 million for uranium mill
tailings cleanup; the new budget request bumps the amount to $28
million.
Matheson said the budget is too vague to determine
whether the$20 million would all go to Atlas cleanup or would be
spread out among other uranium cleanup sites. The Atlas site is
specifically mentioned in the budget," and that's encouraging,"
he said.
DOE should have a decision on the fate of the tailings by
late spring or early summer.
E-mail: spang@desnews.com
© 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
36 Salt Lake Tribune: Hobson's choice (Envirocare)
Opinion
Article Last Updated: 02/16/2005 11:51:40 PM
In November of '03, some of us were wishing Utah could have a
congressman like David Hobson.
Today, we have one. And it is Hobson.
Then, as the Republican congressman from Ohio's 7th District,
Hobson was trying to ship his state's sludgepile of particularly
nasty radioactive waste to the west desert of Utah.
Now, as the chairman of a House appropriations subcommittee,
Hobson is trying to sidetrack administration plans to develop a
new generation of particularly objectionable nuclear weaponry
that is just itching to be tested upwind of Utah.
In both cases, Hobson is just doing his job. Which is
something we can't always say about our own delegates to D.C.,
given that they have tended to side with Hobson when he was
planning to harm Utah and against him when he was doing
something that would help it.
As a congressman, Hobson's job is to help his home state get
rid of the radioactive leavings of Cold War-frenzied
bomb-making. The fact that Utah would have been harmed by his
efforts (which failed) would just have been an unlucky break for
us.
Still it raised the question of why we didn't have a
congressman who pushed as hard for Utah's interests as Hobson
did for Ohio's. Hobson's efforts, given his loyalties, seemed
more reasonable than those of Utah Rep. Rob Bishop, who, until
he was called on it, supported shipping the Fernald, Ohio, waste
to Envirocare in Tooele County.
As a House budget watcher, Hobson's job is to review proposals
for nuclear weapons and avoid an unnecessary round of War on
Terror-frenzied bomb-making. The fact that his skepticism toward
so-called bunker-buster nuclear warheads could help Utah avoid
being downwind of another round of nuclear tests is just a lucky
break for us.
But, with the congressmen and senators we have, Utah needs
all the luck it can get.
The four Republicans in the Utah delegation - Bishop, Rep.
Chris Cannon and Sens. Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett - have
supported the first $4 million round of funding for the
bunker-buster's research and design.
Though that was before the Utah Legislature passed a
resolution opposing resumption of nuclear testing in Nevada. And
before Tuesday, when Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman was talking
up the need to get the test site ready. So perhaps the rest of
the delegation will join Rep. Jim Matheson, the delegation's
only Democrat, in opposition to the bunker-busters in
particular, and testing in general.
Hobson told The Washington Post last week that he opposes any
new nuclear weapons until Congress has evaluated the nation's
nuclear arsenal and determined that we are preparing to fight
the next war, not the last one.
But then, that's Hobson. Just doing his job.
© Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
37 Salt Lake Tribune: Utahns ramp up pressure to move Atlas tailings pile
Last Updated: 02/17/2005 12:47:44 AM
By Robert Gehrke The Salt Lake Tribune
WASHINGTON - Grand County Councilwoman Joette Langianese spent
Wednesday rallying Western senators to support moving a mountain
of uranium tailings from the banks of the Colorado River, while
Rep. Jim Matheson told the new Energy Secretary that the law
requires the pile be moved.
The push comes as the Energy Department prepares to make a
final decision on whether to move the 10.5 million tons of
uranium tailings from the site of the defunct Atlas mill along
the banks of the Colorado River near Moab, or to cap the pile
where it stands.
Chemicals and heavy metals from the pile are contaminating
the groundwater beneath the tailings and seeping into the
Colorado River, which is the source of drinking water for 25
million people downstream.
Matheson said he has yet to hear an explanation on why the
Energy Department is considering options other than moving the
tailings.
"That's not what the law says, that's not what the federally
mandated studies conclude, that is not what is required to halt
the groundwater pollution and the threat to humans and the
environment," he said.
Langianese met Wednesday with staff for Arizona Sen. John
McCain and the chief of staff to Senate Minority Leader Harry
Reid. Both were concerned and receptive to the case for moving
the tailings, she said. On Tuesday she met with other senators
and Paul Golan, the acting assistant secretary for environmental
management at the Energy Department.
"We basically said this is what Grand County wants. We want
that pile moved and we are working with the delegations from all
the impacted states . . . and we're not going to back down,"
she said.
The Energy Department is accepting public input until Friday
on how to deal with the pile. Afterward, the department is
expected to take 30 days to decide whether to cap the tailings
or move them.
© Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
38 TheStar.com: Council backs nuclear disposal
Thu. Feb. 17, 2005. | Updated at 06:51 PM
The Star
Kincardine approves bylaw; environmental assessment is next Poll
shows 60 per cent of residents support waste storage project
JOHN SPEARS BUSINESS REPORTER
KINCARDINETown council last night gave its support to the
establishment of an underground nuclear waste storage facility
at the Bruce nuclear plant.
Council approved a bylaw that will launch a full environmental
assessment of the project. Following that, the facility will
need to be licensed by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.
The approval comes on the heels of a survey released at the
meeting that showed 60 per cent of residents support the
project. The level of support hits 73 per cent when those who
are neutral or refused to answer were excluded from the total.
"I am very pleased with the results," Kincardine Mayor Glenn
Sutton said last night following the vote.
Sutton said Kincardine is the first town he knows of that has
volunteered to be a host for a disposal facility.
Councillors were also pleased with the result of the survey.
"There was a clear mandate from the public," said Councillor
Maureen Couture.
"I'm extremely happy the percentage was that large," said
Councillor Guy Anderson.
Opponents of the proposed waste site either disputed the
credibility of the poll by the firm The Strategic Counsel, or
said the site would damage property values.
Jennifer Heisz said the poll failed to reach enough residents.
"I don't think the results of the poll changed anything," she
said.
Michael Sullivan of The Strategic Counsel said the survey
reached more than 70 per cent of the estimated 8,319 adult
residents of Kincardine.
Ontario Power Generation Inc. proposes sinking shafts 660 metres
deep into a limestone formation below the Bruce nuclear
generating station.
In the limestone would be carved 20 vaults capable of storing
nuclear waste produced by Ontario's nuclear reactors for the
next 30 years.
The waste would not include spent fuel, the most potent form of
radioactive material. Instead, it would be low- and
intermediate-level waste. Low-level waste includes clothing and
gloves worn by visitors to the reactor areas of nuclear plants.
Intermediate waste is sufficiently potent to require shielding
when it's being handled. It includes worn metal parts from the
reactor core, which become radioactive over time, and filters
used to decontaminate air or water.
Low- and intermediate-level waste is currently stored in
buildings and containers on the surface at the Bruce nuclear
site, which is owned by OPG although the generating station is
leased to Bruce Power.
OPG came up with the proposal after talks with town officials,
and drew up a formal agreement with the town last fall.
Under the agreement, OPG will pay Kincardine and four area
municipalities $35.7 million over 30 years.
Construction is unlikely to begin before 2013, with the site in
operation by 2017.
The decision will attract environmental protestors and give the
town a bad reputation, said Russ Hawkins of Southampton, north
of Kincardine.
"People are going to be lying across the road. You're going to
see it on TV everywhere," he said.
Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All
*****************************************************************
39 Guardian Unlimited: British Plant Can't Account for Plutonium
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Thursday February 17, 2005 11:16 AM
LONDON (AP) - A British nuclear reprocessing plant cannot
account for nearly 66 pounds of plutonium, but authorities
believe it's an accounting issue rather than a loss of potential
bomb-making material, the U.K. Atomic Energy Authority said
Thursday.
The amount of material listed as missing at the Sellafield plant
in northwestern England was ``within international standards of
expected measurement accuracies for closing a nuclear material
balance at the type of facility concerned,'' the authority said.
``There is no evidence to suggest that any of the apparent
losses reported were real losses of nuclear material,'' the
authority added.
In 2003, the processing plant reported it could not account for
42 pounds of plutonium. The plant said that was consistent with
figures published since the 1970s.
Plutonium accounts for 1 percent of the nuclear material handled
at Sellafield, the rest if uranium.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
40 MSNBC: Hanford breaks ground on pilot project to glassify waste
By KNDU NewsKNDU-TV
USA - RICHLAND, Wash. - Of three Hanford nuclear reservation
cleanup projects deemed urgent because of the risk they posed to
the public and the environment, only one remains: treating and
disposing of millions of gallons of highly radioactive waste
stored in underground tanks.Last year, workers dealt with two of
the projects - stabilizing 4.4 tons of plutonium and removing
spent nuclear fuel from two leak-prone pools of water just a few
hundred yards from the Columbia River.
And construction is under way on a nearly $6 billion plant that
will use a process called vitrification to turn some of the tank
waste into glass logs for permanent disposal in a nuclear waste
repository.
But the plant was never designed to treat all of the waste in
time for the 2028 deadline imposed in the Tri-Party Agreement, a
cleanup pact signed by the state, the U.S. Department of Energy
- which manages the Hanford site - and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. State and federal officials now hope a pilot
project aimed at treating the remaining waste in a similar
fashion will be successful.
The technology, called bulk vitrification, will be tested at a
new facility at the Hanford site under a research and
development permit approved by the state Department of Ecology.
If bulk vitrification proves viable, a full-scale production
facility will be built to treat as much as 42 percent of
Hanford's tank waste.
"This combination of the waste treatment plant and a
supplemental treatment technology is the surest way for DOE to
meet its Tri-Party Agreement commitment," Roy Schepens, manager
of the Energy Department's Office of River Protection, said
Wednesday at a ceremony to celebrate the start of the project.
For 40 years, the 586-square-mile Hanford reservation in
south-central Washington made plutonium for the nation's nuclear
weapons arsenal, beginning with the top-secret Manhattan project
to build the atomic bomb.
Today, work there centers on a $50 billion to $60 billion
cleanup, to be finished by 2035. That includes cleaning up 53
million gallons of highly radioactive liquid, sludge and
saltcake sitting in 177 underground tanks, less than 10 miles
from the Columbia River.
The Energy Department estimates that roughly 2 million to 3
million gallons of high-level waste will be treated by the
vitrification plant. The goal is to divide the remaining 50
million gallons of less-radioactive waste between the plant and
whatever supplemental technology is chosen for treatment.
That is where bulk vitrification plays a role. Similar to the
vitrification process that is used in the waste treatment plant
now under construction, bulk vitrification turns waste into a
glasslike substance by melting it at a very high temperature
with soil and chemicals for hours.
The difference is that the melting process occurs inside the
container the waste will be stored in, said Rick Raymond,
director of supplemental treatment for contractor CH2M Hill
Hanford Group.
In addition, the melter for bulk vitrification - electrodes
inserted into the waste and the soil mixture - is only used
once.
The state Ecology Department last year approved a research
permit for the pilot project. The very specific permit allows
the Energy Department to test the technology for 365 operating
days in a building that will be torn down when the testing is
completed.
The full-sized, but not full-production, facility will allow for
some of the equipment to be used later if bulk vitrification is
chosen to treat tank waste permanently, Raymond said.
The product it produces - a glass often compared to obsidian -
must be as protective as glass produced by the waste treatment
plant, said Suzanne Dahl, tank waste disposal project manager
for Ecology.
"This testing will give us the needed information to prove or
disprove the viability of bulk vitrification to treat Hanford
waste," Dahl said.
Construction on the building should be completed by June,
followed by several months of testing. In December, workers will
begin making radioactive glass, which then will be subjected to
a number of tests to ensure the process is working adequately
and that the glass is of a high enough quality for long-term
disposal, Raymond said.
A decision on whether to pursue bulk vitrification to treat
Hanford's tank waste will be made in 2006.
© 2005 MSNBC.com
*****************************************************************
41 Yankton Press & Dakotan: Nebraska N-Waste
Opinion
YanktonNow that we have a new governor and our Legislature is
back in session, one of the main problems confronting our
political leaders is the budget deficit. The leading cause of
this deficit is the $141 million fine imposed on Nebraska for
failure to license a low-level waste site.-->
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Nebraska Shouldn't Pay Nuke-Dump Fine
By: By Marcel Sudbeck
Hartington (Neb.) Farmer
Now that we have a new governor and our Legislature is back in
session, one of the main problems confronting our political
leaders is the budget deficit. The leading cause of this deficit
is the $141 million fine imposed on Nebraska for failure to
license a low-level waste site.
In my opinion, this fine was wrong and should never be paid!
In 1980 Congress strongly recommended that states form compacts
to find ways to dispose of low-level radioactive waste. It was
not mandatory to join a compact. However, Nebraska did join one.
In May 1983, Gov. Kerry signed legislation formalizing
Nebraska's participation in a compact with four other states:
Kansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Arkansas. In 1987 Gov. Orr set
conditions for Nebraska's acceptance of host-state status.
The first of these conditions was that the compact would not
locate a facility in a community without that community's
consent. This condition was unanimously approved by the compact
on Dec. 8, 1987. A Dec. 8, 1992, poll indicated 93 percent of
registered Boyd County voters were against a facility being
built in their community. The compact broke this rule by
choosing Boyd County as the waste site.
Another rule of the compact was that the host community was to
receive $300,000 a year for community improvement until the
facility was built. This was not done, thus breaking another
rule.
In the licensing process, it was determined that the site
chosen for the facility contained wetlands. Again this goes
against the rules of the compact, which says the site cannot be
built on wetlands! In August 1993, the site was reconfigured.
Dirt was filled in low areas in an attempt to get rid of
standing water. This is important to note because it proves that
this was definitely a wetland, therefore not suitable for a
waste site. Ward Valley, Calif., was denied a permit by the
federal government to build a waste site because it was
environmentally unsafe and the people did not want it. Also,
when the company monitoring the site in Boyd County attempted to
remove their wells, they actually had to wait for the water to
recede before they could get their pumps out.
Gov. Ben Nelson has been accused of acting unfairly in his
attempt to stop this site from being built in Boyd County. In
fact, this was the basis for the lawsuit against Nebraska. It is
the duty and responsibility of the leader of a state to protect
the people and environment of his state. This is exactly what
our governor was doing.
Rule 23 of the compact allows a state to withdraw from the
compact for a fine of $125,000. This is much less than $141
million! If Governor Nelson had been acting unfairly, he could
have immediately withdrawn Nebraska from the compact. In fact on
May 12, 1999, Gov. Johanns signed bill LB530, which withdrew
Nebraska from the compact. This was paid in 2003.
It is also the duty of our federal judges to see that rules are
upheld and to protect the economic and physical well being of
the state and its people. Judge Kopf, by his ruling against
Nebraska, has failed to do this. In my opinion, Judge Kopf's
ruling is so biased that I question what his motives really were!
There is now a report out by the Nuclear Energy Institute that
shows the amount of low-level waste that needs to be stored has
been reduced by up to 93 percent. This has been accomplished
because no waste sites have been built, and waste-generating
facilities have found ways through new technology to reduce and
dispose of the waste. This report also says that there is a need
for only one waste site in the United States. Was this site to
be located in Nebraska?
The list of questionable practices by the compact goes on and
on. Why did the compact choose a developer that was having
financial problems and had numerous problems with leakage at
other sites it had built? Why were six utility companies allowed
to join the compact? I thought the compact was between states,
not between states and utility companies. This compact was
supposed to be financed by grants of $40,000 from each of the
five states.
The companies were Arkansas Power &Light Company, Gulf State
Utilities Company, Louisiana Power &Light Company, NPPD, OPPD
and Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Company. Why didn't NPPD join
the lawsuit against Nebraska/ Where did the courts come up with
the figure of $141 million for a fine?
In 1991 the executive director of the compact was convicted of
embezzling one million dollars from the compact. How much more
money was wrongly spent?
Finally, why should Nebraskans have to pay for a waste facility
that was not built, in a place that was not safe, by a company
that was not financially sound and in the end was not needed?
Therefore, because of all this information, I am asking Gov.
Heineman to stop all considerations of payments on this fine and
to start an honest investigation as to what really went on
regarding the compact.
*****************************************************************
42 KLAS: Clean up of Moab Uranium in Jeopardy
February 17, 2005
klastv.com
(Feb. 18) -- A gigantic pile of radioactive dirt that sits right
on the edge of the Colorado River may not get cleaned up after
all, as the Department of Energy is reconsidering its options.
A nine-story mountain of tailings from an old uranium mine sits
on the Colorado River at Moab, Utah. Each day, the pile
contaminates 30,000 gallons of river water. The water is not
only radioactive, but it carries arsenic, mercury, and heavy
metals.
Eventually, these toxins are carried downriver and into Lake
Mead. The federal government has been promising for years to
clean up the pile but now says it may put a cap on the tailings
instead of removing them.
The public has until Friday to comment on the D.O.E.'s options.
Local water officials insist there is no danger to our drinking
water from the pile, although environmentalists aren't so sure.
Click here if you would like to submit a comment by email to
the D.O.E.
Copyright 2000 - 2005 WorldNow and KLAS. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
43 [NukeNet] Probe Finds Nuke Guards Mishandled Guns
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:53:33 -0800
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
At the Nevada Test Site, security was beefed up
recently after guards failed to stop a mock
terrorist attack on a bunker to safeguard
weapons-grade nuclear material.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Test-Site-Security.html
Probe Finds Nuke Guards Mishandled Guns
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: February 17, 2005
Filed at 12:09 a.m. ET
LAS VEGAS (AP) -- Federal and private guards
entrusted with monitoring the transport of nuclear
and conventional weapons ``systematically''
violated policies governing the handling and
inventory of their own weapons, a report released
Wednesday stated.
In one case, a private guard gave a government
handgun to his wife to store overnight in her car,
the report by the Energy Department inspector
general found. In another, guards improperly took
government and personal handguns to a Nevada
nuclear test site.
The report noted inadequate record-keeping exposed
the weapons to theft, loss or misuse.
Officials with the National Nuclear Security
Administration and Wackenhut Services Inc.
downplayed the findings as paperwork slip-ups, not
performance flaws. They said weapons inventory
procedures had been stepped up, and guards had
been disciplined.
``We don't believe this indicates a systematic
problem,'' said Al Stotts, a National Nuclear
Security Administration spokesman in Albuquerque,
N.M.
The NNSA oversees the Office of Secure
Transportation, which moves conventional and
nuclear weapons, weapons components and
radioactive material around the country.
``Clearly, there was some sloppiness that needed
to be cleaned up,'' said Jim Long, president and
chief executive of Wackenhut, a security firm
based in Palm Beach Gardens, Fla. ``That's what we
did and that's what the government did.''
The nine-month investigation was triggered after
New Mexico guards improperly took government and
personal handguns to a training exercise at the
Nevada Test Site in October 2003.
The report found a federal guard brought a
personal gun to the test site to be fixed by a
Wackenhut employee -- an apparent ethics
violation. It found accounting controls lacking
for two of 19 government handguns moved in June
2001 from Fort Chaffee, Ark., to the NNSA's
National Training Center in Albuquerque.
It also traced two government-owned handguns
signed out by a Wackenhut employee from a NNSA
armory in Albuquerque in October 2003; two other
Wackenhut employees handled the guns before one
gave them to his wife to store overnight in her
car at home.
``He told us that he was concerned about
transporting the handguns onto Kirtland Air Force
Base without the proper custody documentation,''
the report said.
Long and Stotts declined to identify the guards or
what discipline they received. They said they were
sure the guns were not used for illegal purposes.
A federal inspector general's report last year
accused Wackenhut of cheating on performance
drills at the Energy Department's facility in Oak
Ridge, Tenn.
At the Nevada Test Site, security was beefed up
recently after guards failed to stop a mock
terrorist attack on a bunker to safeguard
weapons-grade nuclear material.
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
44 DOE: Ridge Reservation Health Effects Subcommittee
FR Doc 05-3051
[Federal Register: February 17, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 32)]
[Notices] [Page 8092-8093] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr17fe05-38]
Name: Public meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee on PHS
Activities and Research at DOE Sites: Oak Ridge Reservation
Health Effects Subcommittee (ORRHES).
Time and Date: 12 p.m.-6 p.m., March 22, 2005. Place: Oak Ridge
Mall, Alpine Meeting Room, 333 East Main Street, Oak Ridge,
Tennessee. Telephone: (865) 482-2008. Status: Open to the public,
limited only by the space available. The meeting room
accommodates approximately 50 people.
Background: A memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed in
October 1990 and renewed in September 2000 between ATSDR and DOE.
The MOU delineates the responsibilities and procedures for
ATSDR's public health activities at DOE sites required under
sections 104, 105, 107, and 120 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA
or ``Superfund''). These activities include health consultations
and public health assessments (PHA) at DOE sites listed on, or
proposed for, the Superfund National Priorities List and at sites
that are the subject of petitions from the public; and other
health-related activities such as epidemiologic studies, health
surveillance, exposure and disease registries, health education,
substance-specific applied research, emergency response, and
preparation of toxicological profiles.
In addition, under an MOU signed in December 1990 with DOE and
replaced by an MOU signed in 2000, the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) has been given the responsibility and
resources for conducting analytic epidemiologic investigations of
residents of communities in the vicinity of DOE facilities,
workers at DOE facilities, and other persons potentially exposed
to radiation or to potential hazards from non-nuclear energy
production and use.
HHS has delegated program responsibility to the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Community involvement is a
critical part of ATSDR's and CDC's energy-related research and
activities, and input from members of the ORRHES is part of these
efforts.
Purpose: The purpose of this meeting is to address issues that
are unique to community involvement with the ORRHES, and to
provide agency updates.
Matters To Be Discussed: agenda items will include a brief
discussion on the ATSDR project management plan and the schedule
of PHA's to be released in FY2005-2006; overall health
communication plan; Y-12 PHA Video; launch of the new
ATSDR/ORRHES website; updates and recommendations
[[Page 8093]] from the Exposure Evaluation, Community Concerns
and Communications, and Health Outcome Data Workgroups; and
agency updates.
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
For Further Information Contact: Marilyn Horton, Designated
Federal Official and Committee Management Specialist, Division of
Health Assessment and Consultation, ATSDR, 1600 Clifton Road, NE.
M/S E-32 Atlanta, Georgia 30333, telephone 1-888-42-ATSDR
(28737), fax 404/498- 1744.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices
pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee
management activities, for both CDC and ATDSR.
Dated: February 11, 2005.
Alvin Hall, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 05-3051 Filed 2-16-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
*****************************************************************
45 Tri-City Herald: K Basin concrete likely holding
This story was published Thursday, February 17th, 2005
By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer
Newly discovered cracks in the leak-prone K East Basin at
Hanford do not appear to extend all the way through the
concrete, according to an engineering report.
The indoor pool 400 yards from the Columbia River holds 1.2
million gallons of water contaminated with radioactive sludge.
Built in the 1950s, it's long past its design life.
The K East Basin has leaked several million gallons of
radioactive water into the soil in the past. But the newly
discovered cracks do not appear to be allowing detectable
amounts of water to leave the basin, according to the report,
prepared by Fluor Hanford, a Department of Energy contractor.
The cracks were discovered after a video camera was lowered into
a portion of the pool called the weasel pit to try to determine
what was hidden in 4 feet of sludge that had accumulated there.
The K East and West Basins were built to hold fuel irradiated in
Hanford reactors until it was processed to remove plutonium used
in the nation's nuclear weapons program. When processing at
Hanford stopped, 4.65 million pounds of fuel were left stranded
in the basins for more than a decade.
Last year, Hanford workers removed the last of the highly
radioactive fuel from the basins. Now, work is under way to
remove sludge that formed from corroded fuel, dust and concrete
that sloughed off the walls of the basin.
Videotapes of the weasel pit show 10 cracks in the wall, the
longest about 15 feet long. Water remains in the pool to shield
workers from radiation from the sludge.
The longest crack appeared to be sealed with a dark material,
indicating it likely appeared before the pool was first filled
with water and patched then, according to the report.
"Experts say there is very little chance the crack goes all the
way through" the 27-inch thick wall, said Pete Knollmeyer, Fluor
Hanford vice president of K Basins Closure. The other nine
cracks are narrower and shorter, he said.
The cracks likely are not new, but newly visible as paint has
worn off the sides of the pool, according to the report.
It concluded they did not present a structural problem.
Indicators of major leaks found in the past have not been found
with the weasel pit cracks. No more water is being lost from the
K East Basin that could be expected with evaporation, and there
has not been increased contamination linked to the K East Basin
in monitoring wells between the pool and the river.
However, the Environmental Protection Agency is suspicious that
small amounts of contaminated water are seeping from the basin,
given the age of its concrete.
No action on the weasel pit cracks is planned, beyond more
frequent monitoring for leaks.
That is acceptable to EPA, said EPA scientist Larry Gadbois.
EPA wants Hanford workers to concentrate on emptying the basins
of sludge and water as quickly as possible, rather than getting
involved in ancillary work, he said.
© 2005 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
46 Tri-City Herald: IsoRay expansion temporarily stops its planned move
This story was published Thursday, February 17th, 2005
By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer
IsoRay Medical will stay in the Tri-Cities, at least
temporarily, after signing a lease allowing it to expand its
manufacturing operation into an unused Richland building offered
by Pacific EcoSolutions.
The move buys the promising startup company time to decide
whether to build its permanent plant in the Tri-Cities or in
Idaho.
In the meantime, the leased building will allow the company to
produce medical isotope treatments for up to 600 cancer patients
per month with a staff that is to expand from 19 to 90.
"We've been unwilling participants in the political arena," said
Roger Girard, IsoRay chief executive.
The company had planned to open a production center in the
Tri-Cities this fallto employ up to 250. But after getting
caught in the politics of Initiative 297, it appeared to have
little choice but to move out of state, Girard said.
Voters passed I-297 in November to bar the Department of Energy
from sending more radioactive waste to Hanford until waste there
is cleaned up. The nuclear reservation is massively contaminated
from 50 years of producing plutonium for the nation's nuclear
weapons.
On the day the initiative was to take effect, DOE moved to stop
a wide range of activities that use radioactive materials that
might fall under the initiative. DOE's interpretation affected
both cleanup work at Hanford and research at Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory in Richland.
The national lab stopped manufacturing medical isotopes under
its contract with IsoRay until a court injunction temporarily
halted the new law from being enforced. Not knowing how the
initiative will be interpreted in court has made getting
permanent financing for production in the Tri-Cities difficult,
Girard said.
Two bills are proposed in the Legislature to clarify that
medical manufacturing operations are exempt from the initiative,
but they will require a two-thirds majority to pass.
Without passage of one of them, IsoRay can't stay in Washington,
Girard said.
"The interim facility gives us the chance to get this solved,"
he said.
The startup company, founded in 1998, believes it has a better
way to kill prostate cancer cells. In prostate brachytherapy,
tiny radioactive seeds are injected to release a targeted dose
of radiation to kill cancer cells.
By using a better source of radiation, a stronger burst of
energy can be used, and the radiation also dissipates faster so
less damage is done to healthy cells. The key is using
fast-decaying cesium 131 in the implanted seed, rather than the
more commonly used iodine 125 or palladium 103.
Eleven patients have been treated in Texas, Illinois and
Washington since the treatment went commercial in late October.
Patients in California, Arizona and Tennessee are scheduled for
treatment in the next two weeks.
The national lab in Richland has been a good partner for
research and development, Girard said. But now the company wants
to move to larger-scale production.
The glove boxes and hot cells the company ordered built to
handle radioactive materials at its new manufacturing plant are
close to being ready, but the initiative has stopped the company
from moving forward with a permanent facility, Girard said.
"The baby's coming. We've got no home, no crib," he said.
That was until Dave Dalton, president of Pacific EcoSolutions,
or PEcoS, and Bob Ferguson, chief executive of Nuvotec, offered
a lease of a PEcoS building. PEcoS, a subsidiary of
Richland-based Nuvotec, treats low-level radioactive waste and
low-level waste mixed with hazardous chemicals.
PEcoS has the licenses and permits IsoRay needs for
manufacturing a nuclear product, can offer a secure location and
can handle the small amount of radioactive waste the plant will
produce, according to IsoRay.
IsoRay expects to begin producing cesium 131 seeds at the PEcoS
building around late spring and gradually phase out production
at the national lab. It plans to hire three to 10 workers a
month to staff two production shifts at the interim plant until
employment reaches about 90, Girard said.
The company had planned to build on about 15 acres in the
Tri-Cities, taking advantage of the community's nuclear
knowledge and experience and the advanced research being done at
the national laboratory.
After the initiative passed, IsoRay was approached by officials
in Idaho eager to solve the company's problems by moving it to
the Idaho State University campus in Pocatello, Girard said.
Although IsoRay will not discuss specifics, the Idaho proposal
includes free leased land, a low-interest loan and training at
the university.
The company expects to receive offers of economic development
packages from both Washington and Idaho over the next three
months, Girard said. It will be looking at what both states
offer in land, grants, tax abatement and training, he said.
Washington needs to figure out what it can do within the
boundaries of I-297 and what economic development tools it has,
said Marc Baldwin, the governor's policy adviser on economic
development.
"We'd love to have them stay in town," said Dick Larman,
managing director of business and project development for
Washington's Department of Community, Trade and Economic
Development.
Idaho sees science and technology as critical to its economy, in
part because jobs may pay twice as much as other private sector
positions, said Georgia Smith, spokeswoman for the Idaho
Commerce and Labor Department.
In addition to producing cesium 131 seeds to treat prostate
cancer, IsoRay also has plans to produce another isotope,
yttrium 90, which already has an expanding market for medical
use. IsoRay believes it can produce the yttrium more efficiently
and with less waste than the process now used.
It's also looking at new uses for cesium 131, particularly for
breast cancer treatment, and at ways to deliver the radiation
dose other than with implanted seeds.
IsoRay's hope is that wherever it settles, it becomes the core
of a cluster of medical isotope businesses, Girard said. It's in
talks with three other companies about sharing equipment,
research, production or marketing, he said.
© 2005 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
47 Paducah Sun: Explosions, plumes just plant training
Paducah, Kentucky
Staff report
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Government officials advise residents not to be afraid of loud
explosions and smoke plumes Thursday near the Paducah Gaseous
Diffusion Plant because the sights and sounds will be part of a
multifaceted homeland security training exercise.
The exercise will be held outside the plant in conjunction with
a tabletop portion at J.R.'s Executive Inn.
Led by the Kentucky Division of Emergency Management, the
exercise will involve plant operator USEC Inc., plus local,
state and federal emergency-response agencies including the
Kentucky Office of Homeland Security, the National Guard, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
Agencies will cooperate to respond to a simulated terrorist
attack directed against the plant.
This is the first in a series of crucial infrastructure
exercises developed by Kentucky emergency management officials
to assess the capability of local communities and state/federal
agencies to respond to terrorist-related security emergencies,
according to a Kentucky Homeland Security release.
The goal is to ensure that each agency has appropriate response
plans, policies and procedures in place, and to make sure all
agencies are collaborating most effectively, the release said.
*****************************************************************
48 [du-list] EJ Victory!!
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:53:58 -0800
Congratulations to the Environmental Health Center and all the other
groups in California who worked so hard!!!
Tara
Very important victory for environmental justice and the precautionary
principle in California.
Katie
> EJ VICTORY!!
>
> Congratulations to everyone who worked so hard for our California EJ
Victory yesterday. This means everyone who struggled for 2 years to
win the groundbreaking CalEPA EJ Policy Recommendations Report in 2003
and those who took it forward this week to win the beginning of a new
approach to achieve environmental health and justice for our
> communities. The California Environmental Justice movement was out in
force and was incredible, inspiring and effective!
>
> For the first time ever, Cal EPA has agreed to use cumulative impacts
assessment and a precautionary approach to guide their work.
> Initially, these definitions will guide their efforts in pilot project
communities in 2005 and 2006 but the much larger victory is the policy
foundation these definitions provide for new legislation and
regulations that will take a comprehensive approach to community
health. The definitions are:
>
> Cumulative Impacts means exposures or public health and environmental
effects from combined emissions and discharges, in a geographic area
including environmental pollution from all sources, whether sinle or
multi-media, routinely, accidentally, or otherwise released. Impacts
take into account sensitive populations and socioeconomic factors, when
data is available.
>
> Precautionary Approach means taking anticipatory action to protect
public health or the environment if a reasonable threat of serious harm
exists based upon the best available science and other relevant
information, even if absolute and undisputed scientific evidence is not
available to assess the exact nature and extent of risk.
>
> We have much more work to do but together we can do it! Si se puede!
Please spread the word to all of your networks.
>
> Diane
>
>
> Diane Takvorian
>
> Executive Director
>
> Environmental Health Coalition
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own computers.
At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/EA3HyD/3MnJAA/79vVAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
49 [du-list] DU in the news - 17th Feb. 05
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:52:49 -0800
Letters to the Editor Feb. 16, 2005
http://www.pacificatribune.com/Stories/0,1413,92~3247~2714968,00.html
Pacifica Tribune Wed, 16 Feb 2005 10:49 AM PST
As a new parent, I am particularly grief stricken for the
families of Jonny Bier and Stephanie Echeverri. No parent should have to
bury their teenagers, especially under such tragic circumstances.
Tungsten bullets cause cancer in wounds:
http://news.newkerala.com/health-news-india/?action=fullnews&id=72866
New Kerala Wed, 16 Feb 2005 10:09 AM PST
[Health India]: BETHESDA, Md., Feb. 16 : Tungsten alloys,
being used in battlefield munitions to make them less toxic may cause
cancer in soldiers wounded by them, U.S. Army researchers said.
----------
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/05
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own computers.
At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/EA3HyD/3MnJAA/79vVAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more
information go to:
*****************************************************************