*****************************************************************
05/04/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.102
*****************************************************************
RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body
NUCLEAR POLICY
1 BBC: US 'blocking Iran plastics deal'
2 Xinhua: Rice reiterates US support to EU-Iran nuclear talks
3 albawaba.com: FM: Iran has right to have access to nuclear energy
4 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: N.Korea Sites Watched for Nuke Test Prepa
5 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: Ban says revival of 6-party talks appears dim
6 Korea Times: NK Fired Russian Missile - Official
7 csmonitor.com: Bargaining With North Korea |
8 US: Non-Proliferation and the Nuclear Shadow
9 US: U.S. Department Of State: Energy Security Requires Broad Range o
10 US: LobbyWatch: Lobbying the Watchdogs Hundreds of companies push th
11 Japan may end bid for nuclear fusion project - paper
12 IPS-English UN-NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT: UAE paper calls for
13 Daily Times: States wrangle over right to nuclear technology
14 Grist: An interview with longtime anti-nuclear activist Helen Caldic
15 AFP: Non-proliferation meeting deadlocked
NUCLEAR REACTORS
16 US: TMI fire watch deployed (non-emergency)
17 US: [NukeNet] Bad Nukes Editorial in NY Times
18 RIA Novosti: CHERNOBYL STILL SCARS THE EARTH
19 BBC: Greens' (Don't let labour party in or more nukes will be built)
20 US: NRC: NRC Proposes $60,000 Fine Against Exelon Generation Co. for
21 US: Tuscaloosa: Bellefonte nuclear plant study may be released this
22 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeuards Subcommittee Meetin
23 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Meeting of the
24 US: NRC: Notice of Opportunity To Comment on Model Safety Evaluation
25 ITAR-TASS: Chernobyl cleanup veterans get social allowances in full
26 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Group asks NRC to act on faulty insulation
27 US: Online NewsHour: An Illinois Community's Debate Over a Potential
28 US: MSN Money: 9 ways to play the nuclear power surge
29 US: South Florida Sun-Sentinel: U.S. proposes 100 new nuclear power
30 SA: Business Day: Out-of-touch green lobby at risk of losing face on
31 AFP: France closing in on deal to host ITER nuclear reactor
NUCLEAR SECURITY
32 US: [du-list] Non-Proliferation and the Nuclear Shadow - from
33 US: [NYTr] US Plans for Pre-emptive Nuke Strikes over "WMDs?"
34 Interfax: Russia cut nuclear arms by 80% since 1991 - official
35 Bellona: UK and Norway to sponsor dismantling of two more nuclear su
36 RIA Novosti: OVER FIVE YEARS RUSSIA CUTS ITS NUCLEAR STRENGTH BY 1,7
NUCLEAR SAFETY
37 UN Atomic Agency To Test Emergency Preparedness With Simulated Accid
38 US: [du-list] DU Munitions Action Plan, DOT-E 9649, Update
39 US: [DU-WATCH] Veterans Administration Time Limit For Claims
40 [DU-WATCH] Desert Shield / Desert Storm Vets Survey
41 US: Journal News: Atomic bomb survivors speak
42 US: BoiseWeekly: Report: We're All Downwinders, But Don't Expect a C
43 KUAM: Federal report allows residents to apply for compensation due
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
44 US: ABQjournal: LANL Wants Larger Nuke Storage Dump
45 Las Vegas SUN: State argues to get all documents on Yucca
46 Salt Lake Tribune: Yucca won't take waste from Utah
47 US: lamonitor.com: Forum weighs nuke waste area expansion
48 US: Rapid City Journal: Uranium cleanup meetings set
49 KESQ: CA: Nevada asking NRC panel to order more Yucca documents made
50 US: KFOR: Radioactive tract
51 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Dry cask debate resumes Thursday
52 US: KLTV TX: Senate approves radioactive waste bill
53 US: North County Times: NRC says it will continue to address spent f
PEACE
54 Guardian Unlimited: World Mayors Urge Nuclear Disarmament
55 New Scientist Interview: After the bomb - Interview
56 csmonitor.com: Toward real nuclear disarmament |
57 Deutsche Welle: Germany Pressures US Over Nuke Removal
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
58 Tri-City Herald: Vit plant obstacles don't stop progress
59 ABQjournal: Congress to Hear Update On LANL
60 ABQjournal: Congress to Hear Update On LANL
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 BBC: US 'blocking Iran plastics deal'
Last Updated: Wednesday, 4 May, 2005
[Iran's national flag flying over the Pars gas field]
Iranian goods are banned from the US by trade sanctions
Iran's National Petrochemical Company says it is being excluded
from buying a major Dutch plastics maker by US political
pressure.
Polypropylene maker Basell is being sold by its joint owners,
Anglo-Dutch oil group Shell and chemicals giant BASF of Germany.
INPC has been "unofficially told Iran cannot buy Basell", the
ISNA news agency cited the firm's boss as saying.
A Shell spokeswoman in London said the Basell negotiations were
confidential.
She declined to confirm whether the Iranian firm was among the
bidders being considered, or comment on press reports that US
officials had raised objections.
Sanctions risk
US firms face trade sanctions if they import Iranian goods.
Basell is the world's biggest maker of polypropylene and its US
customers are worried about the implications of an Iranian deal,
according to Reuters news agency and the Wall Street Journal.
US sanctions date back to tensions following Iran's 1979 Islamic
revolution. But diplomatic tensions with the US and Europe are
currently escalating over Iran's nuclear programme, making a
change of policy unlikely.
"Shell and BASF announced that we had an intention to review
strategic alternatives for Basell in July 2004. Offers for the
company have been received and advanced discussions have taken
place," she said.
"We are bound by commercial confidentiality and I cannot give you
any further comment."
Finished business?
A deal to sell Basell for 4.4m euros (Ł3bn; $5.7bn) is reportedly
close to completion. Its products are used in everything from
plastic bottles to car parts.
"Although NPC won all aspects of the Basell tender, due to US
pressures, we cannot buy Basell," ISNA quoted the Iranian firm's
managing director Mohammed Reza Nematzadeh as saying.
An Indian firm, Haldia, is now poised to win the bidding for
Basell, the Wall Street Journal reported. Haldia is backed by two
New York-based financiers, Chatterjee Group and Access
Industries.
The US is "concerned that Basell is a very large multinational
with a high degree of technology and Iran is state sponsor of
terrorism and a proliferator," Reuters cited a US State
Department official as saying.
"The chances of it being the Iranians is decreasing," Reuters
quoted a separate, unnamed source close to the negotiations as
saying earlier in the week.
"There would be a risk to Shell's reputation because if they were
to scrap a potential deal with Iran because it is developing
energy sector interests in that country."
Iran was one of the countries listed by President George W Bush
as belonging to an 'axis of evil' in a speech in 2002.
*****************************************************************
2 Xinhua: Rice reiterates US support to EU-Iran nuclear talks
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2005-05-05 04:57:18
WASHINGTON, May 4 (Xinhuanet) -- US Secretary of State
CondoleezzaRice reiterated on Wednesday the US stand of
supporting the EU-3's talks with Iran and urged Iran not to
develop nuclear weapons program.
"We are completely supportive of what the EU-3 (Britain,
Franceand Germany) is trying to achieve and what they are trying
to achieve is very simple. And that is that there needs to be a
very clear commitment from the Iranians to live up to their
international obligations not to seek a nuclear weapon under the
cover of a civilian nuclear power," Rice said after a meeting
withEU High Representative Javier Solana.
"We are very supportive of the talks. We continue to believe
that this is the only way for Iran to resolve this issue in a
way that the international community will be able to verify and
to support," Rice said.
Rice said the United States hopes the talks will succeed and
urged the Iranians to take advantage of the opportunity "that
the Europeans are giving them."
Hassan Rowhani, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, warned on
Saturday that Iran would resume nuclear activities concerning
uranium enrichment if it failed to reach an agreement with the
European Union over Iran's nuclear file.
"Iran will make decision on resumption of uranium enrichment
in Tehran next week," Hassan Rowhani, also secretary of Iran's
Supreme National Security Council, was quoted by the official
IRNA news agency as saying. Enditem
Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
3 albawaba.com: FM: Iran has right to have access to nuclear energy
Posted: 04-05-2005 , 12:42 GMT
Iran's Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi has stressed the
developing states' right to have access to peaceful nuclear
energy for economic development. In a meeting with his Irish
peer Dermot Ahern on the sidelines of the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference, Kharrazi said
new discrimination against non-nuclear countries is not
acceptable. [Kamal Kharrazi]
"We will keep negotiating with the Europeans to safeguard our
inalienable right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
"The Islamic Republic seeks its absolute right through
dialogue," the Iranian minister reiterated in comments published
Wednesday by IRNA.
Kharrazi outlined Iran's cooperation with the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and said, "We are determined to
continue cooperation with the agency. Bilateral cooperation has
been quite positive and constructive."
© 2005 Al Bawaba (www.albawaba.com)
*****************************************************************
4 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: N.Korea Sites Watched for Nuke Test Preparations
Home> National/Politics Updated May.4,2005 23:22 KST
digging of tunnels in Kilju in North KoreaˇŻs North Hamgyeong
Province, where the North may or may not be preparing for an
underground nuclear test, the head of Joint Chiefs of Staff
intelligence told lawmakers Wednesday. In a closed-door report
to members of the National Assembly's Defense Committee, Kim
Seong-il said six or seven other areas in North Korea were also
being monitored for signs of preparation for a test.
The Chosun Ilbo reported Tuesday signs of an impending nuclear
test were discovered in Kilju, North Hamgyeong Province.
(englishnews@chosun.com )
*****************************************************************
5 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: Ban says revival of 6-party talks appears dim
May 5, 2005 KST 14:04 (GMT+9)
May 05, 2005 ¤Ń Saying efforts to revive the six-party nuclear
disarmament talks with North Korea are at a critical juncture,
South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon yesterday called
prospects of renewing negotiations dubious and laid the blame
for the impasse on the North Korean government.
"We are at a critical stage in terms of resolving the North
Korean nuclear issue peacefully and through diplomatic means,"
Mr. Ban said. "North Korea has to realize that the current
situation in which the six-party talks are not being resumed
cannot go on forever. [North Korea] should stop hanging on to
unrealistic demands and answer to the demands of the
international community."
For months, Pyongyang has demanded an apology from Washington
for remarks made by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in
which she labeled North Korea an "outpost of tyranny."
At a press conference, Mr. Ban characterized the possible
revival of the talks as "not bright," but he said South Korea
remains committed to solving the nuclear standoff in a
diplomatic and peaceful manner.
Still, Mr. Ban said that waiting on Pyongyang would end at some
point. "North Korea has to face reality and make a strategic
choice," he said. "If this [stalemate] continues, the patience
of the international community will wear thin and negative
comments will be made more often."
Washington has repeatedly hinted in recent weeks that it was
prepared to take stronger actions, such as referring the nuclear
crisis to the UN Security Council in order to impose economic
sanctions on the North.
The remarks by Mr. Ban came as tension between Pyongyang and
Washington has rised sharply. North Korea test-fired a missile
earlier this week into the East Sea towards Japan. The test came
just days after a press conference given by U.S. President
George W. Bush in which he called North Korean leader Kim
Jong-il "a tyrant." Last month, international media also
reported that U.S. officials thought Pyongyang might conduct a
nuclear test soon.
While South Korea's Defense Ministry flatly discounted the
possibility Monday, Mr. Ban only said that the international
community is closely watching Pyongyang and relevant information
is being shared closely with allies such as the United States.
Separately, Joseph DeTrani, the U.S. special envoy for the
six-party talks, warned Tuesday in Washington that the
international community has "a very strong position" on the
possible export of nuclear materials by Pyongyang.
Earlier this month, Selig Harrison, director of the Asia Program
at the Washington-based Center for International Policy, told
reporters in Beijing after a visit to Pyongyang that North
Korean officials told him their government would not supply
fissile material to third parties if Washington proves willing
to talk.
by Brian Lee africanu@joongang.co.kr>
Copyright by Joins.com, Inc. Terms of Use |
*****************************************************************
6 Korea Times: NK Fired Russian Missile - Official
Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation
SEOUL (Yonhap) - The Defense Ministry said Wednesday that the
missile North Korea fired into East Sea is an upgraded version
of Russia's SS21, marking the first official confirmation of
North Korea's missile launch.
"North Korea fired a missile into the East Sea whose range is
presumed to be from 100 to 120 kilometers, and is called by the
North the KN-02, an upgraded version of the Russian SS21, Kim
Sung-il, a senior official at the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in
a closed-door session, according to lawmakers who attended it.
He said the missile launch is presumed to be for improving the
performance of North Korea's surface-to-surface missiles and not
for attacking another country or for mounting nuclear or
chemical warheads on the missile.
The KN-02 is known to be a portable surface-to-surface
short-range ballistic missile, and its range is farther and
accuracy greater than the SS21.
The missile, if fired from near the inter-Korean border, could
strike the city of Pyongtaek.
05-04-2005 22:07
*****************************************************************
7 csmonitor.com: Bargaining With North Korea |
05/05/2005
Commentary > The Monitor's View
from the May 05, 2005 edition
Sen. Hillary Clinton squared off against President Bush last
week over how to deal with North Korea, throwing a political
punch that's likely to be repeated again and again into the 2008
presidential campaign.
The junior senator of New York claimed Mr. Bush hasn't "been all
that successful" in preventing North Korea's "continued attempts
to obtain nuclear weapons." In fact, the world now finds itself
in "grave consequences" due to Bush's "failure," said the former
first lady of another president who tried (and failed) to curb
Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions.
Her criticism is anything but a domestic dispute between
Democrats and Republicans. North Korean officials are probably
cupping their hands to their ears to find out which side will
prevail, and may aim their actions at influencing this Beltway
debate.
Many Democrats such as Senator Clinton see a more immediate -
perhaps imminent - threat in North Korea's nuclear program and
long-range missiles than Bush does. That's quite a role reversal
from the pre-Iraq war debate. It may be they simply want to
position themselves to the right on the type of security issues
that had hurt them in the 2004 elections.
What they specifically want are direct talks with the North's
truculent leader, Kim Jong Il, rather than continuing the
six-nation talks that are going nowhere. Mrs. Clinton made that
request last week in a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice.
The North's threat level does appear to be rising. Pyongyang
declared in February that it had nuclear weapons. And the US has
told foreign diplomats the North appears to be preparing an
underground test, perhaps next month. South Korea claims the
North Korean issue has reached a "critical point."
What the US can give away
Could direct talks quickly "solve" the crisis? The US could
easily give the North what it wants - a security guarantee,
money, and humanitarian aid - if the North can verifiably
dismantle its nuclear program. Mr. Kim's ruthless regime might
then be able to stay in power, but without nukes, without an
economic collapse, and without opening his hermit nation to
global influences.
But Bush doesn't buy into the direct approach. He saw how
President Clinton's bilateral agreements failed due to the
North's perfidy. So he's looped in China, South Korea, Japan,
and Russia as witnesses and enforcers to any deal that might
come out of the multiparty talks.
China as pivot
Bush's less urgent attitude toward the North relies to a large
degree on China, which prefers the current "nuclear ambiguity"
but would come down hard on the North if it had a bomb, knowing
the US might attack. Chinese spies provide a
canary-in-the-coal-mine alert for Bush. So far they're telling
South Korea and others that North Korea is far from having a
bomb.
Bush, in other words, wants simply to manage the problem for
now, while some Democrats want to solve it immediately.
Those opposing views represent two very different readings on
North Korea's intentions.
It's not clear to Pyongyang watchers if dictator Kim simply
wants to continue to make dubious nuclear threats as a way to
keep getting money from South Korea and others to help keep his
regime in power, or whether he's really prepared to drop the
nuclear program, open up his society to foreign investment, and
risk domestic pressures that might bring his demise. His
credibility with North Koreans could fall fast if they clearly
saw how deprived their country is compared to others.
Testing Kim's vulnerability
If Kim is sincere in wanting his country to be nonnuclear and
open to the world - and yet confident that he can stay in power
- then the time is ripe to cut a deal. The six-party talks are a
way to probe Kim about his intentions and test his vulnerability.
But since the last talks in September, North Korea has refused
to attend. Instead, angry words continue to pass between the US
and the North. The White House calls Kim "not a good person"
while the North calls Bush a "philistine" and a "hooligan."
Until Kim is confident enough to make a decision to open his
nation, the outside world will have to remain vigilant, probing,
and patient until he's really ready to deal.
www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2005 The Christian Science
Monitor. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
8 Non-Proliferation and the Nuclear Shadow
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 12:36:08 -0500 (CDT)
Institute for Public Accuracy
915 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045
(202) 347-0020 * http://www.accuracy.org * ipa@accuracy.org
___________________________________________________
Wednesday, May 4, 2005
Non-Proliferation and the Nuclear Shadow
With the review conference on the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) now
underway at the United Nations, commentators include independent policy
analysts and Americans who have direct experience with nuclear weapons tests.
JOHN BURROUGHS, johnburroughs@lcnp.org, http://www.lcnp.org
Burroughs, executive director of the New York-based Lawyers' Committee on
Nuclear Policy, is monitoring the Non-Proliferation Treaty conference in
New York. Burroughs presented the paper "Building a Nuclear Weapons-Free
Future" at the January meeting on the NPT at the Carter Center. He said
today: "As the four-week NPT Review Conference opened this week, the U.S.
is showing no flexibility about arms control steps like negotiation of a
verifiable treaty banning production of fissile materials (plutonium and
highly enriched uranium) for nuclear weapons. That is a treaty under which
international inspectors would monitor U.S. facilities, a prospect not
attractive to the Bush administration. In turn, non-nuclear countries are
resisting non-proliferation measures like IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei's
proposal for multilateral controls on the spread of technology to produce
fissile materials for use in nuclear reactors but also potentially in
nuclear weapons."
DENNIS P. NELSON, dpnmdk@starpower.net, innercircle@starpower.net
Nelson is the director of Support & Education for Radiation Victims. He
said today: "I know first hand what it means to grow up downwind from atom
bombs, and I know the history of government deception and its failure to
acknowledge the great harm that was done. ... Renewed nuclear testing would
be an insult to all those who have suffered so much from the effects of the
atom bomb. Those who have lost their lives have yet to be acknowledged and
honored for their ultimate sacrifice in the name of 'national security.'"
In November 2002, the National Geographic magazine recounted Nelson's
history as a downwinder: "Born and raised in St. George, Utah, Nelson was
seven when atomic bombs with names like 'Charlie' and 'Baker' began
exploding less than 120 miles from his home. But with safe assurances from
the Atomic Energy Commission, his family thought they were unaffected. They
continued to eat vegetables from a garden irrigated with water polluted
from fallout dust and drink fresh milk from the farmer up the street. They
were unaware that scientists would eventually show that radioactive iodine
131 often entered the food chain through milk from cows that ate
contaminated grass or feed, and increased the risk of thyroid cancer. The
Nelsons' health eventually began to unravel. In a family of seven, seven
different kinds of cancers were diagnosed, including colon cancer, which
claimed his sister Margaret."
JOSEPH GERSON, jgerson@afsc.org, http://www.afsc.org/pwork/0503/050312.htm
Director of the American Friends Service Committee's Peace and Economic
Security Program and the author of the book "With Hiroshima Eyes: Atomic
War, Nuclear Extortion and Moral Imagination," Gerson said today: "Few in
the U.S. are aware of the world's growing anger over U.S. double standards
and Washington's hypocrisy. [They] are the primary forces driving nuclear
weapons proliferation and threatening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
Review Conference. ... At the last NPT Review Conference in 2000, under
pressure from the non-nuclear nations, the nuclear powers agreed to take 13
'practical steps' toward implementing Article VI: ratifying the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, strengthening the Anti-Ballistic Missile
treaty, reducing their nuclear arsenals, halting production of
weapons-grade nuclear materials, and more. The U.S. has since refused to
ratify the CTBT, abrogated the ABM [treaty], and continues to develop new
nuclear weapons. ... The current U.S. administration's
counter-proliferation policy is an extension of its first-strike
unilateralism."
ALICE SLATER, aslater@gracelinks.org, ccooper@abolitionnow.org,
http://www.gracelinks.org/nuke/
Director of the Global Resource Action Center for the Environment and a
coordinator of the AbolitionNow! campaign, Slater said: "The bargain
enshrined in the Non-Proliferation Treaty was that any non-nuclear state
may develop peaceful nuclear power so long as they foreswear developing
nuclear weapons. In exchange, the nuclear signatories promised to make
'good faith' efforts to get rid of their nuclear weapons. That was over 30
years ago, and today the U.S. maintains enough nuclear weapons on
hair-trigger alert to destroy the world hundreds of times over and is now
researching new, more usable tactical nuclear weapons and adopting a
military posture that allows the use of nuclear weapons in preemptive
attacks. Technically, Iran is not yet in violation of any terms of the
Treaty while the U.S. continues to violate it on a daily basis. If the U.S.
demonstrated a commitment to genuine disarmament, it would surely then have
the moral authority to close the loopholes in the Treaty that allow nuclear
power programs to be used covertly to develop nuclear weapons."
For more information, contact the Institute for Public Accuracy at (202)
347-0020; or David Zupan at (541) 484-9167
_________________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
public@lists.accuracy.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
public-unsubscribe@lists.accuracy.org
For all list information and functions, including changing
your subscription mode and options, visit the Web page:
http://lists.accuracy.org/lists/info/public
*****************************************************************
9 U.S. Department Of State: Energy Security Requires Broad Range of Sources, U.S. Says-
Energy Secretary Bodman cites cost of investment as key issue
Countries should consider a whole range of energy sources when
they make their energy security plans, U.S. Secretary of Energy
Samuel Bodman says.
In May 3 remarks at the International Energy Agency (IEA)
meeting in Paris, Bodman said investment must go not only into
fossil fuels but also into nontraditional sources such as
hydrogen, nuclear and renewable energy.
The scale of investment needed to meet global energy demand was
cited as a major challenge to future energy security in the
group’s final communiqué. According to the IEA, $16 trillion
must be invested in the global energy sector over the next 25
years.
To make that happen, countries must foster an inviting
investment climate based on respect for the rule of law,
enforceable contracts and regulatory certainty, he said.
Bodman said this condition applies to developing as well as
developed countries, including the United States, where new
energy-related investments have been discouraged by regulatory
uncertainty and other barriers.
President Bush has recently announced proposals that are
intended to address some of those problems.
Bodman urged other countries to use the latest clean energy
technologies, which he said have the most benign impact on the
environment and great potential for meeting the energy demand of
fast-growing emerging markets.
The 26-member IEA is an international body committed to
advancing the security of the energy supply, economic growth and
environmental sustainability.
Following is the text of Bodman’s remarks as prepared for
delivery:
U.S. Department of Energy
Remarks Prepared for Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman
International Energy Agency
May 3, 2005
I am delighted to be participating in my first meeting of the
IEA.
All of us recognize that satisfying our growing energy needs
represents a global challenge. I believe we can meet that
challenge by working in concert to expand energy diversity,
increase efficiency and conservation efforts, enhance and
upgrade our energy infrastructure, develop new and existing
energy supplies, and promote free and fair commerce.
Each of these avenues will require, in varying degrees,
substantial capital investment. Let me touch on a few areas
that I think we should consider in our discussions today.
First, I think it is fair to say that energy security no longer
means quite the same thing as it did when the IEA was founded in
1974.
Certainly, maintaining a substantial emergency oil reserve
remains an important goal. But the investments we make today
in our future energy security should look not only to
traditional hydrocarbons, but toward a whole range of energy
sources, including hydrogen, nuclear, and renewable sources.
For investment in any part of the energy sector to be successful
over the long term, we must also foster an attractive investment
climate that respects the rule of law, honors contracts, and
provides regulatory certainty.
Let me emphasize that these conditions apply to all of us, and
are not just themes with which to lecture the developing world.
My own nation is faced with growing demand for electricity and
extremely tight oil refining capacity. Neither of these
problems is new or unexpected. Yet the United States has not
built a new nuclear power plant or a new oil refinery in
decades—in large part because new investments have been
discouraged by regulatory uncertainty and other barriers. Last
week, President Bush announced measures our Administration is
taking to address these issues, but there is still much work to
be done.
Finally, our understanding of how our energy use affects the
environment is a subject that has become very prominent and is
likely to remain so. Because energy investments tend to be so
capital intensive, and new energy projects tend to be so large
and long-lasting, we need to think about how our investments
today will impact the world decades from now.
Developing nations building new infrastructure, as well as
industrialized countries which are replacing and upgrading their
infrastructure, should think about utilizing the latest
technologies with the best environmental performance. In the
transportation sector, we can mitigate the side effects of
petroleum-based fuel with new clean diesel and hybrid
vehicles. We can build electricity grids of the twenty-first
century with better technology, such as superconductive wires.Â
And instead of the conventional coal-burning technologies, we
can focus on developing and building state-of-art clean coal
power generators that emit no pollutants or greenhouse gases.
Clean coal technologies, along with nuclear power, have great
potential for meeting the global energy demand, particularly
among the growing Asian economies.
These are a few of the priorities that I see, and that President
Bush is pursuing with his energy policy for the United States.
Of course, there are many challenges we face, and other
viewpoints and suggestions will emerge in our discussions. But
I think we would all agree that everyone has an important role
to play.
Let me conclude by thanking the IEA for providing this forum.
Created:03 May 2005 Updated: 04 May 2005
*****************************************************************
10 LobbyWatch: Lobbying the Watchdogs Hundreds of companies push their agendas
with the GAO, FEC and OGE
The Center for Public Integrity
By Elizabeth Brown
WASHINGTON, May 3, 2005 — When it comes to lobbying in
Washington, ChevronTexaco Corp. knows how to distribute its
energy. The petroleum powerhouse is a high-profile fixture on
Capitol Hill, spending millions to curry legislative favor. The
company's hired guns routinely seek to influence regulations at
the Department of Energy, rulemakings at the Environmental
Protection Agency—and even independent investigations at the
Government Accountability Office.
But ChevronTexaco is hardly unique. The GAO has launched
thousands of inquiries into government programs during the past
six years. During that time nearly 300 companies and
organizations have sought to influence those investigations,
according to a study of federal lobbying records by the Center
for Public Integrity.
In fact, many of the federal offices responsible for overseeing
the integrity of American democracy are among the more than 200
agencies lobbied during the past six years—agencies such as
the Federal Election Commission, the Office of Government Ethics
and the GAO, which serves as the investigative arm of Congress.
"So many lobbyists cover so many issues, it is not surprising
to find them popping up almost everywhere," said lobbying expert
Burdett Loomis. Lobbying these oversight agencies, he added, may
be a "more indirect" way of influencing government, but it can
still be quite effective.
[Influencing the Investigators] The Government Accountability
Office is the 43rd most-lobbied agency in the federal
government. Since 1998, almost 300 companies have employed more
than 1,500 lobbyists to lobby this government watchdog agency.
For example, although the GAO writes no legislation and issues
no rules or regulations, lobbyists contacting the agency can
"affect the context of legislation," said Loomis, a professor of
political science at the University of Kansas. "There is lots of
interest in shaping the debate, even if there is not a rule."
The Nuclear Energy Institute ranks high among the organizations
trying to shape the legislative debate. The pro-nuclear power
trade association is one of the groups that reported contacting
the GAO the most during the past six years, Center findings
reveal.
The GAO recently issued three reports affecting the interests of
the nuclear energy industry, said Steve Kerekes, a spokesman for
the group. These reports included recommendations to Congress
about how to handle the oversight of security at nuclear power
plants, what funds were needed for nuclear decommissioning and
other issues.
Kerekes said his group works with the GAO in order to provide
accurate information for the investigations and also a "sound
basis for policymaking." He said the GAO periodically contacts
the NEI itself when it launches an investigation involving
energy industry, but added, "I guarantee we would proactively
contact them to make sure they have all the accurate
information."
Terry Draver, a senior analyst at the GAO, agreed that contact
between agency investigators and interested parties can be
initiated by both groups, especially when they are working on a
report that affects a certain industry.
"It does not surprise me that other groups would come to make
their pitch when the GAO is doing work in their area," Draver
told the Center.
Draver said the balance of views expressed to the GAO could be
"a concern," but said he thinks the investigators are
"professional enough" not to let the loudest voices of special
interests interfere with the integrity of their reports.
"We stress that we are nonpartisan, but that does not mean we
close our eyes and our ears," Draver said. "It can be helpful;
more information is better than less."
The Federal Election Commission, the office responsible for
overseeing federal election laws, is also accustomed to hearing
the voices of interest groups. More than 40 companies and
organizations have reported contacting the agency during the
past six years. Unlike the GAO, however, the FEC issues campaign
finance law regulations, and that is where most of the lobbying
takes place, said FEC spokesman Bob Biersack.
"Most commonly," Biersack said, "[the lobbying] probably comes
in the context of our writing and revising regulations and there
is a standard process for [submitting comments]. Anyone can do
it."
Although many of the companies and organizations that reported
contacting the FEC are public advocacy groups such as Common
Cause, Democracy 21 and Public Citizen, which lobby to support
changes in campaign finance laws, others with less-obvious
motives contact the agency as well.
For example, the Air Conditioning Contractors of America is one
of the groups that reported contacting the FEC the most during
the past six years. The specific lobbying issues listed on the
trade association's disclosure forms ranged from "political
action committee prior approval" to "blacklisting" and "bid
shopping." Representatives from the group declined to comment on
its lobbying activities.
Biersack said he was unsure what the association meant by the
descriptions on the forms, but said that groups "can't lobby on
enforcement [of election laws], so it must be on the rule
changes or regulation issues."
Lobbying of the FEC increased notably during the first half of
2004, as the commission interpreted a new law that would
regulate the donations of political non-profits. In fact, 13 of
the 16 groups that contacted the agency that year did so because
of the change in regulation, which Biersack said "triggered lots
of controversy in the non-profit community."
The Office of Government Ethics—the body charged with
preventing conflicts of interest on the part of government
employees—also feels the pressure of special interests.
Although the agency was lobbied considerably less than the GAO
and the FEC, four groups reported contacting the agency to
advance their agenda during the past six years. Most recently
the Senior Executives Association, an association of current and
former high-level government employees, lobbied the OGE for a
change in—what else?—lobbying laws.
In 2004 the group contacted the OGE in favor of a proposed rule
change that would reduce the number of senior government
employees who are subject to a ban on lobbying their former
agencies for one year after leaving government. The rule has not
been changed, according to OGE officials.
"Our goal is to work together with them," Carol Bonosaro,
president of the Senior Executives Association, said about
contacting the OGE.
And according to lobbying expert Burdett Loomis, it's
reasonable to expect that industries will work with oversight
agencies. These agencies, he said, need to get their information
from somewhere, and they generally do hear all sides of the
issues.
But, Loomis added, "The moneyed interests may weigh in more.
Well, welcome to the real world."
© 2005, The Center for Public Integrity. All rights reserved.
IMPORTANT: Read our privacy policy and the terms under which
this service is provided to you. 910 17th Street, NW · 7th Floor
· Washington, DC 20006 · Tel. (202) 466-1300
*****************************************************************
11 Japan may end bid for nuclear fusion project - paper
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 22:13:30 -0400
Mothersalert Home: http://www.mothersalert.org
Greatest Threat To Life On Earth:
http://www.heatisonline.org
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-japan-nuclear-iter.html
Japan may end bid for nuclear fusion project -
paper
By REUTERS
Published: May 4, 2005
Filed at 9:31 a.m. ET
TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan may give up its bid to
host the world's first nuclear fusion reactor,
making it likely that the 10 billion euro ($12.87
billion) experimental reactor will be built in
France instead, a Japanese newspaper said on
Wednesday.
Japan might make the concession because it
believed it would win construction work and jobs
even if it did not host the project, the Yomiuri
Shimbun said, quoting government sources.
Advertisement
``The government hopes to finish negotiating with
... the countries concerned and to reach a formal
agreement next month,'' the newspaper said.
Nuclear fusion, using sea water to create energy,
has been touted as an environmentally clean
solution to the world's energy problems. But 50
years of research have so far failed to produce a
commercially viable fusion reactor.
The International Thermonuclear Experimental
Reactorproject will seek to build the first fusion
reactor but competing bids from Japan and France
have led to months of wrangling over who will host
the high-profile and lucrative project.
Efforts to resolve the impasse gained momentum
after European Research Commissioner Janez
Potocnik made a fresh proposal in Tokyo in April,
the paper said.
That plan was similar to a Japanese proposal in
September under which non-host countries would win
orders for 20 percent of construction work while
bearing just 10 percent of the cost, it said.
Officials for Japan's Science and Technology
Ministry were not immediately available to comment
on the report on Wednesday, a national holiday in
Japan.
The European Commission said it had seen the
report but had received no official information.
``We are continuing our discussions in order to
clarify the role of the hosts and non-hosts of
ITER following the meeting between Messrs Nakayama
and Potocnik on April 12 in Tokyo,'' Antonia
Mochan, spokewoman for the Commission's Science
and Research Directorate, told a regular news
briefing.
Nariaki Nakayama is Japan's minister for
education, culture, science and technology.
Once the host issue has been clarified, ``we will
be in working order to reach an international
agreement by July,'' Mochan said.
``Nothing has changed. Things are going very well
indeed,'' she added.
European Union member state ministers are due to
discuss ITER next Tuesday in Brussels.
The European Union has put the total cost of the
project at about 10 billion euros ($13 billion),
of which 4.5 billion euros will go directly on
building the reactor -- which would generate
energy by combining atoms, unlike current fission
reactors that release energy by splitting them
apart.
ITER, which means ``the way'' in Latin, would
operate at more than 100 million degrees Celsius
to produce 500 MW of power, according to the
project Web site (www.iter.org). The reactor, due
to start in 2015, would run for around 20 years.
Other partners in the project are split over where
to site ITER. South Korea and the United States
back Japan's bid, while China and Russia stand
behind the EU push for France.
Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi was
noncommittal on Monday when asked if he could ever
support the project going to France.
``Discussions are proceeding so that an agreement
can be produced among the six parties. We agreed
that we should engage in efforts so an agreement
can be reached as early as possible,'' he said in
Luxembourg following an EU-Japan summit.
The EU wants to see ITER built in Cadarache in
France while Tokyo wants it in the northern
village of Rokkasho. Both sides have set a
deadline of July to decide where to site the
project.
*****************************************************************
12 IPS-English UN-NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT: UAE paper calls for
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 14:19:51 -0700
NA HD
UN-NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT: UAE paper calls for removing all nukes
Att.Editors: The following item is from the Emirates News Agency (WAM)
ABU DHABI, May 4 (WAM) - A major United Arab Emirates (UAE) English daily
today commented on the issue of nuclear weapons and called for the
dismantling of all nukes and removing the threat of explosions.
Commenting on the issue under the title "Towards a safer world", the
Dubai-based 'Khaleej Times' said: "The U.S. and Iran are at daggers drawn
yet again. The existing tensions in Washington-Teheran relations have peaked
with the U.S. unleashing a bristling attack on the Islamic republic at the
ongoing UN nuclear disarmament conference in New York.
"While the periodic expressions of concerns by the U.S. about Teheran's
nuclear programme are hardly new, this time around Washington has raised the
pitch by demanding 'punishment' for Iran and insisting that the Iranian
regime is building atomic weapons.
"The hardened U.S. stance on Iran belies the recent speculation and hopes
in European media that Washington has softened its stance on Teheran's
nuclear programme. When U.S. President Bush and Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice during their recent visits to Europe had expressed their
willingness to allow the European Union to resolve the issue of Iran's
nuclear programme, it was widely expected that the U.S. is prepared to go
along the EU line that the issue should be resolved peacefully.
"In this connection, the EU's so-called Big Three -- France, Germany and
Britain -- have already held several rounds of negotiations with the Iranian
government. While the EU is seeking to exhaust all options in its
carrot-and-stick approach to the Iran question, Teheran has been adamant on
resuming its uranium enrichment activity ostensibly to help its nuclear
energy programme.
"While EU and Iran have yet to make any substantial progress in resolving
the issue, Europe has managed to persuade Iran to stop the enrichment
activity and thus freeze its nuclear programme.
"At this stage, therefore, it is advisable to allow the issue to be
resolved through diplomatic negotiations. Iran, on the other hand, would do
well to desist from any more political adventurism. Its talk of resuming
uranium enrichment is dangerously unrealistic considering Washington's
resolve to 'discipline' Iran. In its own interests, Iran should cooperate
with the world community. Fortunately for it, the EU and UN are still
willing to give the Islamic republic the benefit of doubt and allow it
another opportunity to demonstrate it is not pursuing weapons of mass
destruction.
"Although the issue of nuclear programmes of Iran and North Korea has
understandably dominated the opening sessions of the month-long conference
on nuclear disarmament, the world community needs to adopt a more
comprehensive approach to the issue of nuclear proliferation. In addition to
the declared nuclear powers and the recent entrants to the club like India
and Pakistan, many other nations are said to be secretly working on their
own nuclear programmes.
"UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's proposal of offering incentives to
prevent states from developing nuclear weapons is rooted in pragmatism and
common sense. The nuclear club would do well to seriously examine Annan's
call. This is perhaps the only way of preventing more nations adding to the
deadly pile of thousands of nuclear weapons the world has been sitting on
for decades," concluded the paper. (WAM)
*****************************************************************
13 Daily Times: States wrangle over right to nuclear technology
Thursday, May 05, 2005
By Carol Giacomo
The United States and others have accused Iran of a clandestine
18-year effort to use its NPT membership as a guise for
acquiring technology needed to produce nuclear weapons
At the heart of this month’s United Nations nuclear
non-proliferation conference is a fundamental question: Do
countries have an unambiguous right to peaceful nuclear energy?
It used to be assumed the answer was yes, as Iran insists.
But the United States and others recently have shown more
willingness to re-think the issue, emphasising crucial
conditions and setting new parameters for a debate that is
unlikely to be resolved soon.
Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi affirmed Tehran’s position on
Tuesday during the second day of debate at the conference taking
stock of the 1970 Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, under which
Iran and 182 other states renounced nuclear arms. As part of the
pact’s inherent bargain, the five states officially allowed to
retain nuclear arms - the United States, Russia, China, France
and Britain - promised to help non-nuclear states acquire
peaceful nuclear energy and in time, to scrap their own atomic
arsenals.
Kharrazi insisted this means states have an “inalienable right”
to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes that
“emanates from the universally accepted proposition that
scientific and technological achievements are the common
heritage of mankind.” “It is unacceptable that some tend to
limit the access to peaceful nuclear technology to an exclusive
club of technologically advanced states under the pretext of
non-proliferation,” he said. His remarks contrasted with the US
view that the NPT’s guarantees of access to peaceful nuclear
energy hinges fundamentally on nations also adhering to other
treaty obligations forsaking nuclear weapons.
Clandestine pursuit: The United States and others have accused
Iran of a clandestine 18-year effort to use its NPT membership
as a guise for acquiring technology needed to produce nuclear
weapons. Tehran insists its goal is peaceful energy development.
But its uranium enrichment and plutonium separation programmes
can also produce weapons-grade fuel. Estimates vary but some
experts say Iran could have a bomb by as early as 2007. The
European Union is negotiating with Iran trying to persuade it to
abandon its nuclear ambitions but expectations are low, raising
fears the Islamic republic will, like North Korea, withdraw from
the NPT and become a nuclear power.
Concerns go well beyond Iran, however. Almost 60 states operate
or are constructing nuclear power or research reactors and at
least 40 possess the industrial and scientific infrastructure
enabling them, if they chose, to build nuclear weapons at
relatively short notice. Washington this week told the
conference that states that violate the treaty or withdraw from
it should be deprived of nuclear technology that their
membership of the treaty has allowed them to build up.
But US officials acknowledge this would be hard to implement.
Some nuclear experts go even further, arguing Iran has no
absolute “inalienable right” to engage in fuel cycle activities
like uranium enrichment or plutonium separation. A legal
analysis of the NPT by the Washington-based Nuclear Control
Institute, a non-profit group, asserts that the right to
peaceful nuclear energy “must be exercised in conformity with”
the treaty’s other provisions. It concluded that the NPT must be
read as ensuring that before a non-nuclear weapons state
receives nuclear energy technology, factors like proliferation
risk, economic viability and the ability to safeguard the
project must be considered.
“The issue before this review conference is whether the basic
assumption as to the way the treaty has been interpreted over
decades now needs to be revised because of what we’ve seen in
North Korea and ... Iran,” said Paul Levanthal, the institute
president. reuters
Daily Times - All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
14 Grist: An interview with longtime anti-nuclear activist Helen Caldicott
| By Gregory Dicum | Grist Magazine | Main Dish | 03 May 2005
No Nukes Is Good Nukes
By Gregory Dicum 03 May 2005 [Helen Caldicott.] Helen
Caldicott. Photo: Greg Barrett. In 1971, Helen Caldicott had an
epiphany: all life on earth could end at any moment, simply
because a few pig-headed people imagined they could "win" a
nuclear war. A decade later, she had given up her promising
medical career to devote her life to nothing short of saving the
world.
Her urgent Australian twang became a sane voice in a world gone
mad. In 1985, the Caldicott-inspired International Physicians
for the Prevention of Nuclear War won the Nobel Peace Prize. The
organization beat out Caldicott herself, who had been nominated
by Linus Pauling, the renowned chemist, anti-nuclear activist,
and 1962 Nobel Peace Prize winner.
By the end of the Cold War, Caldicott had attempted a quiet
retirement in Australia. But that didn't last. Today, with a
renewed push to develop nuclear weapons in the U.S. and other
countries and nuclear energy slithering back onto the table, the
threat is as present as ever, as she writes in .
With her latest endeavor, the , Caldicott seeks to counter the
media offensives of the nuclear industry. Meanwhile, she's
working on a new book -- her sixth -- about the
psychopathologies of nuclear decision makers.
Grist met with Caldicott in San Francisco, where she was
planning a fund-raiser around the release of Helen's War, a
sobering film about her initial efforts to get NPRI off the
ground in the midst of post-9/11 groupthink.
[question] There's a concerted effort right now to rehabilitate
the image of nuclear power. Proponents argue that fossil fuels
are more damaging to the environment, as well as being in short
supply, and that nuclear is the [best option going forward].
What's going on here?
[answer] The people saying these things are not biologists,
they're not geneticists, they're not physicians. In other words,
they don't know what they're talking about. And that makes me
very annoyed. First of all, every reactor produces about [20 to
30] tons of highly radioactive waste a year. The majority of it
is very long-lived and will have to be isolated from the
ecosphere for hundreds of thousands of years ... As it leaks
into the environment, it will bio-concentrate by orders of
magnitude at each step of the food chain: algae, crustaceans,
little fish, big fish, us.
It takes a single mutation in a single gene in a single cell to
kill you. [The most common plutonium isotope] has a half-life of
24,400 years. Every male in the Northern Hemisphere has a small
load of plutonium in his gonads. What that means to future
generations God only knows -- and we're not the only species
with testicles. What we're doing is degrading evolution, and not
many people understand that.
[question] Yet as society begins to recognize that we do have to
get away from the petroleum economy, there's a lot of enthusiasm
amongst environmentalists for hydrogen -- enthusiasm that's
shared by the nuclear industry.
[answer] Well, of course, they'll do anything. I've been
dealing with them for 30 years and they lie -- they frighten me.
I can debate with generals about nuclear war and feel much more
comfortable because they know that what I'm talking about is
true. The nuclear industry just lies its way through the whole
thing.
[Nuclear cooling towers.] Nuclear power is no answer, says
Caldicott. They say nuclear power is the answer to global
warming. Well ... the [Department of Energy] and the EPA [will
tell you] that, at the moment, the process of uranium enrichment
for fuel for nuclear power releases huge quantities of CO2. And
that does not include releases from decommissioning of the
reactor and transportation and long-term storage of the waste.
Meanwhile, the enrichment of uranium is responsible for [over
90 percent] of the CFC-114 gas released into the air in the U.S.
Now, CFC is banned internationally under the Montreal Protocol
because it destroys the ozone layer, one. Two, CFC gas is 10,000
to 20,000 times more potent as a global warmer and heat trapper
than CO2. So the nuclear industry is lying. And advocates for
nuclear power have fallen for the nuclear industry's lies. Not
propaganda, but lies.
Of course we've got to stop burning oil and coal. Those
grotesque vehicles that get 10 miles to the gallon should be
banned! Americans have no idea about conservation. Europeans
have the same standard of living as you and they use 50 percent
less energy because they turn their lights off and they
conserve. We are actively killing the earth by the way we live.
[question] But some European countries derive more of their
power from nuclear energy than the U.S.
[answer] Many countries in Europe are starting to realize that
what they've done with nuclear power is ridiculous and immoral.
Belgium, Germany, and Sweden have now passed laws to close down
the reactors. So they're learning, but a little too late. Where
are they going to put the waste?
[question] Meanwhile, here in the U.S., we're going in the
other direction, talking about new nuclear plants and even new
nuclear weapons. Why now?
[answer] Because the nuclear scientists in the labs keep
pushing and pushing. They like building and testing their
nuclear weapons. They get a lot of money for it, and they're
addicted to it.
The generals like their missiles too. One general basically
said, "If you threaten our missiles and our early-warning
systems, baby, that's threatening the family jewels." Got it?
That's the reason they're still there. Missiles are an extension
of their sexuality. There's a deep psychosexual pathology
inherent in the brains of these men. "Missile erections," "deep
penetrations" -- even the language they use is sexual. I've
thought, in my more light-hearted times, that maybe they should
all be given Viagra, and then they wouldn't need their missiles.
[question] Although women have also led nuclear-equipped
countries, and very aggressively.
[answer] Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, and Golda Meir. But
you're picking three women out of millions of men. Some women --
very few -- emulate male behavior. Condoleezza Rice is one. The
magic number is 30 percent [according to a U.N. report]. Below
30 percent representation [in government], women tend to please
the men and vote for missiles. Above 30 percent, they say, "No,
you're not getting your missiles -- we're voting for milk for
children." So women need to support each other in order to do
what they know is correct behavior, and express their nurturing
instincts. It's got nothing to do with politics.
[question] Most of the nuclear-policy focus lately has been on
the various dangerous, unpredictable regimes that are busily
acquiring nuclear weapons. Why does yours continue to be on the
United States?
[answer] The most dangerous regime in the world at the moment
is this regime. The country with the largest number of weapons
of mass destruction is America. Of the nearly 30,000 nuclear
weapons in the world, Russia and America own 95 percent. No one
else can destroy all life on earth except Russia and America.
The two rogue nations in the world are Russia and America,
holding the world at nuclear ransom. Period.
We got to within 10 seconds of nuclear war in 1995 when Yeltsin
made a mistake. On 9/11, America was on the second- or
third-highest state of nuclear alert, ready to launch. Weapons
are still on hair-trigger alert. They go off, Putin and Bush get
minutes to decide whether or not to press their buttons, the
nuclear "exchange" is over in an hour, and that's the end of
most life on earth.
And to look at North Korea, who may have two or eight bombs, or
none -- that's a form of displacement activity. If you put rats
in a cage and threaten them with a lethal situation, they run
around doing something irrelevant to that which threatens them.
That's what people are doing by looking at North Korea and not
looking at the main issue at hand, which is about to blow us all
up. I mean, the whole thing's insane.
[question] It's interesting that you have a lot of inroads with
military people. And a lot of the people who have come out for
nuclear disarmament in the last decade have military
backgrounds. Why do you think that is?
[answer] Well, because they know how dangerous it is. They're
scared.
[question] And yet you'd think they are also in a position to
do something about it.
[answer] Well, you know, they wait till they're retired. That's
typical of these men. It's not that they have an epiphany --
they know all along. So, in a way, they're acting as evil people
by allowing it to happen during their watch and only coming out
when they retire. And I use that word "evil" in a fairly careful
way. They are participating in plans to blow up the planet. I
can't think of any other word that's more appropriate to
describe that than "evil."
[question] Yet today, in spite of this well-documented danger,
the issue's not at the forefront of many people's awareness.
There's a great deal of complacency.
[answer] Well, ignorance. I don't think anyone's shocking
people into facing reality right now. I'm trying and it's not so
easy because I don't get access to the media. It's hard to get
on a lot of stupid shows and talk the truth. They don't want the
truth. They want theater.
I founded NPRI as a way to get this access. So that I, and
others, can get on to debate these awful right-wing characters
from the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute and American
Enterprise Institute. We need equal time, and that's difficult
to come by. But it's starting to happen where we're developing a
fair bit of credibility.
In mid-May, we're having a symposium called "Full Spectrum
Dominance." It will be a retreat for 40 of the nation's top
journalists with some pro-nuclear people, anti-, and people in
the middle -- the top thinkers in the country. Many people say
to me, "This is urgent -- we need media education because no
one's writing about it." The media is determining the fate of
the earth.
[question] You met with Ronald Reagan when he was president --
in an you described an oddly touching scene of holding his hand
to comfort him -- but you came away devastated by the feeling
that there was nothing to be done. Have you tried to meet with
George W. Bush?
[answer] No. I think Reagan had a heart; he was basically a
nice fellow. I don't think this fellow has a lot of heart. And I
also don't think he's very bright. Reagan was intelligent in an
intuitive way. There was someone at home there you could
actually connect with. I'd certainly see George Bush and try to
talk to him, but I wouldn't want any of his neo-conservative
people around him. I'd have to work pretty hard, I think, to get
to his core.
[question] Do you think there's anybody else -- some other
avenue into the administration?
[answer] No, I don't think there's anyone there at the moment
who is really worth talking to. I think they're terribly blocked
and terribly dangerous. They practice psychic numbing -- that's
the medical terminology -- to block out what they're doing.
They're doing evil and not looking at it. But I tell you what: I
treated a lot of these fellows on their deathbeds, or when their
children were dying, and when they're in that very emotionally
vulnerable situation they recant. They look at themselves and
look inside their souls and realize what they've done, and
they're terribly sorry. But it's too late then.
[question] In the film Helen's War, there's a sense that you've
come out of retirement to go back into the fray. This has been
your mission since 1971, and yet here we are, almost 35 years
later --
[answer] I know, and it's worse. I often feel like I've wasted
my life doing this work for no good reason, because I love
medicine. I gave it up to do this work. People have been saying
that I might have helped prevent a nuclear war in the 1980s, but
who knows?
Spend Your $.02 in our blog, Gristmill. I was compelled to do
it. I couldn't stop myself. But am I glad I did it? If we had
gotten rid of the bombs I'd be very glad, and die fulfilled. I
think, though, we've got a chance now to get the revolution
going again -- to build it again and complete the work. All
doctors have to be optimists.
[question] Looking back, what stands out as your greatest
success?
[answer] Of my whole life? The biggest thing I ever did was
give birth to my three babies. That's why we're here, to
reproduce -- biologically speaking. Next to that, I guess it was
the end of the Cold War, but in truth, when that occurred, my
husband had just left me. So I was deeply depressed and I hardly
knew the Berlin Wall came down, which was sort of ironic.
[question] You've done an incredible thing; you've completely
dedicated your life to what you believe in. Not everyone can do
that.
[answer] Why not? Not everyone wants to do it, but everyone can
do it. It's a decision you make. I've seen so many people die
unfulfilled. And those who've dedicated their lives to great
causes of service to the environment and to the human race have
died totally fulfilled.
I think people have to examine why they were conceived, why they
were born. It's our responsibility in this particular
generation, when life on earth -- probably the only life in the
universe -- is so threatened.
Everyone can be extraordinarily effective, they just have to not
be self-indulgent or narcissistic or greedy, and work for other
people and other things. In that action lie the germs of true
happiness. You'll never be happy trying to make yourself happy.
It doesn't work.
[question] So if someone reads this interview, and they get to
the end of it, and now they have the knowledge --
[answer] Then they have to act. Read The New Nuclear Danger:
George W. Bush's Military-Industrial Complex -- there's enough
information in that so you could debate Rumsfeld at any time and
beat him on television. And at the back of that book there's a
huge list of anti-nuclear groups all around the country and the
world, and you can look up all the people making the weapons and
where they live and how you can contact them. The CEOs of
Lockheed Martin and Boeing and the like. It's got a huge list of
things you can do and places you can go and actions you can
take. Knowledge is ammunition, but you have to work out what
you're going to do with your life to save the planet.
Gregory Dicum is the author of . He writes a , the online
edition of the San Francisco Chronicle, and has written for the
New York Times Magazine, Harper's, Mother Jones, and others.
[a beacon in the smog (tm)] ©2005. Grist Magazine, Inc. All
*****************************************************************
15 AFP: Non-proliferation meeting deadlocked
Thursday May 5, 04:41 AM
UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - Just days into a month-long UN conference
on the fight against the spread of nuclear weapons, there is
agreement on the need to reform the Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT) but deadlock over how to do it.
The meeting opened Monday without a set agenda and diplomats
warned it could end in four weeks without even an agreed final
statement.
This comes at a time of mounting warnings that the spread of
nuclear weapons could spin regional conflicts out of control or
get into terrorist hands.
"In five years (since the last NPT review conference in 2000),
the world has changed. Our fears of a deadly nuclear detonation,
whatever the cause, have been reawakened," UN nuclear watchdog
chief Mohamed ElBaradei said in opening the conference at the UN
headquarters in New York.
The treaty which capped the proliferation of nuclear weapons for
decades after coming into effect in 1970 has shown its age in
the new era that began with September 11 attacks on New York and
Washington in 2001.
Under the treaty, nuclear weapons states promised to disarm and
those without nuclear arms were promised peaceful atomic
technology.
George Perkovich, a non-proliferation analyst at the
Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,
told AFP: "It is still the most effective treaty in history,"
referring to the fact that predictions made in the 1960s that
there would soon be 30-40 nuclear weapons states have not come
to pass.
Only five of the 188 NPT members possess nuclear weapons.
"Three nuclear states (India, Pakistan and Israel) have refused
to sign it, one broke it (North Korea) and is now making nuclear
weapons but that is still a pretty good record for anything
global as far as I know," Perkovich said.
Still, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and ElBaradei, head of
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) opened the
conference with warnings that the treaty is out of date.
Three events in 2003 showed that the NPT was in a world
radically different than the Cold-War one in which it was
formulated.
North Korea withdrew from the NPT in order to build the bomb,
the IAEA reported that Iran had hidden sensitive nuclear
activities for almost two decades and a secret international
smuggling ring was discovered that had provided Iran, North
Korea and Libya with weapons-compatible technology.
But fixes to a treaty that does not have a clause authorizing
amendments are hard in principle and even harder in practice due
to often political differences between the member states.
Gary Samore, a non-proliferation expert at the International
Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in London said he did not
think changes were possible.
"It's too early and US leadership is lacking," Samore told AFP,
referring to a US stress on strengthening compliance measures
while being unwilling to reinforce the disarmament part of the
treaty.
Perkovich said the NPT debate has come down to a confrontation
between the nuclear-weapons haves and the have-nots, who are
uneasy about the peaceful uses of nuclear energy being limited,
as the United States wants for Iran.
Washington claims the Islamic republic is using the cover of its
civilian nuclear program to secretly develop weapons.
"The nuclear weapons state are correctly saying, look we've
learned a lot of things in the last five years that are very
unpleasant. There are more challenges out there than we had and
we need to come up with new rules and procedures," said
Perkovich.
But he said the non-nuclear weapons states answer: "What you're
going to ask for is going to be expensive for us or limiting but
we don't see that you're serious about getting rid of nuclear
weapons."
Perkovich pointed to the case of making all NPT signatories
comply with an additional protocol authorizing wider
verification inspections by the IAEA.
"The West would say it's a no-brainer that this should be
accepted as universal but a lot of developing countries say not
so fast," Perkovich said.
Egypt, for instance, refuses to sign the protocol as long as
Israel, believed to have nuclear weapons, refuses to join the
NPT.
Copyright © 2005 AFP. All rights reserved. All information
*****************************************************************
16 TMI fire watch deployed (non-emergency)
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 14:22:56 -0700
Power Reactor Event Number: 41663
Facility: THREE MILE ISLAND
Region: 1 State: PA
Unit: [1] [ ] [ ]
RX Type: [1] B&W-L-LP,[2] B&W-L-LP
NRC Notified By: ADAM MILLER
HQ OPS Officer: CHAUNCEY GOULD Notification Date: 05/03/2005
Notification Time: 14:32 [ET]
Event Date: 05/03/2005
Event Time: 13:10 [EDT]
Last Update Date: 05/03/2005
Emergency Class: NON EMERGENCY
10 CFR Section:
50.72(b)(3)(ii)(B) - UNANALYZED CONDITION
Person (Organization):
RICHARD BARKLEY (R1)
Unit SCRAM Code RX CRIT Initial PWR Initial RX Mode Current
PWR Current RX
Mode
1 N Y 100 Power Operation 100 Power Operation
Event Text
APPENDIX R FIRE SCENARIO INVOLVING MULTIPLE HIGH IMPEDANCE FAULTS
"TMI Issue Report # 329440 identifies an issue associated with a
previously unidentified/unanalyzed Appendix R fire scenario involving
multiple high impedance faults. An engineering evaluation has determined
that certain safety related power circuits are not protected against
multiple high impedance faults, which in combination with a fire in the
305' elevation of the Control Building, could cause a loss of safe
shutdown functions from the control room and the remote shutdown panel. An
hourly fire-watch has been established in the affected fire zone in the
305' elevation of the Control Building as an interim compensatory measure."
The NRC Resident Inspector will be notified.
*****************************************************************
17 [NukeNet] Bad Nukes Editorial in NY Times
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 14:22:48 -0700
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
May 4, 2005
EDITORIAL
The Nuclear Power Option
image00117.jpg
n his sketchy speech on energy policy last week, President Bush placed a
high priority on nuclear energy, which he described as "one of the safest,
cleanest sources of power in the world." The president had good reason to
suggest an important role for this much-feared energy source.
The price of natural gas, the current fuel of choice for power plants, has
risen sharply. And there is mounting evidence that damage from global
warming may dwarf any environmental risk posed by nuclear power. It is
therefore critical to keep nuclear power as part of the nation's energy
mix. But Mr. Bush will have to address some crucial concerns before the
public will follow him down the nuclear path with much enthusiasm.
For starters, there is the awkward fact that nuclear power plants pose a
risk of proliferating the materials and skills to make nuclear weapons.
That is not an issue in the United States, which already has a mammoth
nuclear arsenal. But if the United States resurrects its stagnant nuclear
industry, other nations may also turn to nuclear power, with the risk that
rogue nations may someday use the fuel to make bombs. The Bush
administration will need to find ways, perhaps through the nuclear
nonproliferation review that started yesterday, to ensure that power plants
do not become an easy route to nuclear weapons.
Beyond that, Mr. Bush will need to ensure that the pools holding spent fuel
at domestic nuclear plants can be made safe from terrorists. He will have
to devise a backup plan for storing nuclear waste, should the proposed
burial site at Yucca Mountain prove untenable after legal and regulatory
setbacks. He will need to invest in new, potentially safer reactor designs
to allay longstanding concerns about accidents.
Finally, one familiar impediment to nuclear power - the high capital costs
required up front - could remain troublesome, unless the cost of competing
fuels soars higher.
None of these concerns need rule out this promising source of power. But
they will need to be addressed forthrightly.
Copyright
2005 The New York Times Company |
Home |
Privacy Policy |
Search |
Corrections |
RSS |
Help |
Back
to Top
Rob Sargent
Senior Energy Policy Analyst
National Association of State PIRGs & affiliated organizations
44 Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
P: 617-747-4317
F: 617-292-8057
C: 617-312-7546
rsargent@pirg.org
www.pirg.org
Arizona PIRG * CALPIRG * Environment California * CoPIRG * Environment
Colorado * ConnPIRG * Florida PIRG * Georgia PIRG* Iowa PIRG* Illinois
PIRG* INPIRG * Environment Maine * MaryPIRG * MASSPIRG * PIRGIM * MoPIRG *
MontPIRG * NHPIRG * NJPIRG Citizen Lobby * NMPIRG * NYPIRG * NCPIRG *
OhioPIRG* Oregon State PIRG * PennPIRG * PennEnvironment * RIPIRG * TexPIRG
* U.S. PIRG * VPIRG * WashPIRG * WISPIRG
_______________________________________________________________________
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: image00117.jpg: 00000001,23c05125,00000000,00000000
*****************************************************************
18 RIA Novosti: CHERNOBYL STILL SCARS THE EARTH
Opinion &analysis -
5/05/2005
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti commentator Tatiana Sinitsyna). When the
Chernobyl nuclear power plant's No. 4 unit exploded at 1.23 a.m.
on April 26, 1986, the workers on duty in the control center
were the first to suffer.
The skin of those who survived the initial explosion is said to
have peeled off with their clothes.
The Chernobyl disaster affected millions of people and shocked
the entire world. Radiation contaminated thousands of square
kilometers and inflicted tremendous material losses. The most
terrible nuclear disaster in history spread fear all over the
world. In fact, mankind is yet to overcome this fear.
What is happening today in Chernobyl? Nineteen years ago, tens
of thousands of people risked and sometimes lost their lives,
working on a sarcophagus to enshroud the reactor. Is it still
safe? "Unfortunately, it is not reliable," Dr. Alexander
Borovoi, the head of the Kurchatov Institute's expert group in
Chernobyl, says. "That sarcophagus conceals 185 tons of nuclear
fuel with a total radioactivity of 16 million curies. Three to
5% of the fuel was scattered over adjacent territories. Thirty
percent of the cesium vaporized, and the wind spread it
substance over thousands of kilometers. Cesium has a half-life
of 30 years. Plutonium has a 24,000-year half-life, which means
Chernobyl's radiation wound will scar the Earth for an
eternity."
Borovoi described how Shelter No. 1, as physicists call the
25-story structure, contains a thousand damaged rooms inside.
The radiation levels total tens of thousands of roentgen per
hour, which would kill anyone in just a few minutes.
No one had any experience of clearing up such major disasters
before Chernobyl. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were incomparable both
in terms of the causes of the tragedies and the radiation
emitted. Split-second decisions had to be made, while clean-up
workers had to act by trial and error, sacrificing their health.
Borovoi says the shell itself is no longer reliable, as water
seeps through numerous cracks when it rains before dissolving
radioactive substances that, in turn, mix with subterranean
waters. Mistakes were made because remote-controlled systems
were used during clean-up operations. The cracks now have a
total area of several hundred square meters, which means
plutonium dust could spew out, affecting thousands of on-site
workers. The plant is officially closed, as the last reactor was
shut down three years ago, even though it takes decades to
decommission nuclear units.
Borovoi is worried because the sarcophagus stands on old
structures that were damaged by fires and explosions. If the
structures collapse, clouds of radioactive dust will appear.
"This is a real tragedy because we gave our health and lives to
Chernobyl," Borovoi said. "We tamed the 'dragon' in 1986, but
now it is back to haunt us. It seems that all our work was in
vain."
The international community stepped in to rectify the situation
and to finance the shell's construction. In 1997, the G7 set
aside $760 million for the project. Ukraine is spending this sum
little by little. There are plans to build a huge metal and
reinforced concrete arch near the reactor, which will eventually
be placed over the sarcophagus, protecting the reactor even more
effectively. "But after providing the money, the international
community did not worry about how to organize the work in the
most effective manner," Borovoi said. "Major international
companies with no experience of work in Chernobyl repeatedly won
tenders. It took them three years to accomplish what the
Kurchatov Institute's experts could have done in a year. We
offer cheaper and better services." This project received better
top managers some time later, with the appointment of Charles
Hogg, a retired U.S. naval officer, and a talented and dedicated
professional, to head the group.
Nineteen years have passed since the Chernobyl disaster. People
still ask how it could have happened. Experts are the only ones
who know the answer. A young woman from the Kiev control center
phoned Chernobyl at 2.00 p.m. April 25, telling local power
workers not to reduce the fourth reactor's capacity and to delay
subsequent reactor tests. She was, of course, merely conveying
official orders. The plant's personnel complied and the reactor
operated for another nine hours. This dangerous regime was the
first step toward disaster. The "imperfect" reactor exploded,
thereby exposing the personnel's mistakes.
However, a Chernobyl-type disaster is impossible today. Russian
specialists have developed numerous safety systems for nuclear
reactors that the human factor will never overcome.
© 2005 "RIAN Novosti"
*****************************************************************
19 BBC: Greens' (Don't let labour party in or more nukes will be built)
Last Updated: Wednesday, 4 May, 2005
[Sellafield] Most of the UK's nuclear power stations will be shut
by 2023
The Greens say a vote for Labour could be letting in "new nuclear
power stations through the back door".
The party says Labour has failed on climate change and plans to
build new stations to provide power while producing fewer
greenhouse gases.
But it says stations produce waste that remains a danger for
generations.
The Lib Dems oppose any new stations. Both Labour and the Tories
say concerns about cost and waste must be addressed before any
decision is made.
'Desperate measures'
Of the UK's 14 ageing nuclear power stations, all but one will
have shut by 2023.
Green parliamentary candidate Darren Johnson told the BBC: "We
are really, really concerned that a vote for Labour could be
letting in new nuclear power stations through the back door.
"Because they have completely failed on climate change, they are
now planning for desperate measures.
"While it (nuclear power) produces energy for 30 to 40 years, it
produces nuclear waste for thousands and thousands of years to
come."
I find it hard to see how y are going to get consent for [new
stations] unless you deal with the issue of the public concern
over waste and you deal with the issue of cost Tony Blair
The Greens unveiled their last campaign billboard outside
Parliament on Wednesday, reading: "Nuclear: Tony Blair's
post-election surprise".
Mr Blair has said his policy has not changed since the energy
White Paper two years ago, which left nuclear power on the back
burner.
On Wednesday he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme he could not
rule out a new generation of civil nuclear power stations.
But he said: "Personally, I find it hard to see how you are
going to get consent for that unless you deal with the issue of
the public concern over waste and you deal with the issue of
cost."
Carbon neutral
There have been reports that if re-elected, Mr Blair would raise
the issue when the government responds to its climate change
policy review in the summer.
The government says the UK will meet the Kyoto targets on
climate change but says it has slipped behind its own tougher
targets.
Nuclear power is almost "carbon neutral" - government figures
suggest nuclear generation reduces national carbon emissions by
between seven and 14%.
But campaigners say the risk of accidents, and the toxic waste
it creates, mean it is not acceptable as an alternative to oil
and coal.
The Lib Dems' environment spokesman Norman Baker has said
relying on nuclear power to tackle climate change is "like
jumping from the frying pan to the fire".
The Conservatives have previously said they are in favour in
principle of a new generation of nuclear power stations.
Last week party leader Michael Howard said they did not have the
facts and figures on waste disposal and cost to make a decision,
but said there may be a strong case for a national review of
nuclear stations.
*****************************************************************
20 NRC: NRC Proposes $60,000 Fine Against Exelon Generation Co. for Radiation Safety
Violation at LaSalle Nuclear Plant
News Release - Region III - 2005-02
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs, Region III
801 Warrenville Road, Lisle IL 60532
No. III-05-021 May 4, 2005
CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663
Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a $60,000
fine against Exelon Generation Co. for violating a radiation
safety requirement at its LaSalle Nuclear Power Station. The
plant, which has two reactors, is located near Seneca, Ill.
An NRC investigation determined that four employees of a
contractor working at the LaSalle Station entered a high
radiation area without authorization on Jan. 25, 2004. The Unit
1 reactor was shut down at the time for refueling and
maintenance.
A contractor foreman and three workers were assigned work on a
valve in the reactor building, but were unable to locate it. The
foreman led the three workers into a posted high radiation area
without necessary authorization and training.
NRC investigators determined that the violation was willful in
that the foreman and two of the workers were aware they were not
authorized to enter the high radiation area and had not received
the briefing by radiation protection personnel necessary to
enter the area.
The workers realized they were in the high radiation area when
their radiation monitors alarmed, and none of them received a
significant radiation exposure. The maximum radiation exposure
received was 5 millirem, which is a small fraction of the NRC
limit of 5,000 millirem per year for workers at nuclear
facilities.
"These workers showed careless disregard for radiation safety
rules and procedures, rules that are intended to protect them
from excessive doses of radiation while working at a nuclear
facility," said James Caldwell, NRC Regional Administrator. In
notifying the utility of the fine, he acknowledged that Exelon
had taken extensive corrective actions to improve worker
training and control of activities in high radiation areas.
The letter notifying Exelon of the proposed fine will be
available from the Region III Office of Public Affairs and on
the NRC web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/regulatory/enforcement/current.html
#reactor.
Exelon has until June 2 to pay the fine or to protest it. If the
fine is protested and subsequently imposed by the NRC staff, the
utility may request a hearing.
Last revised Wednesday, May 04, 2005
*****************************************************************
21 Tuscaloosa: Bellefonte nuclear plant study may be released this month
www.tuscaloosanews.com
The Associated Press
May 04, 2005
The Tennessee Valley Authority and the U.S. Department of Energy
should learn by the end of the month if the unfinished
Bellefonte Nuclear Plant near Hollywood is a candidate to be
completed and go on line.
Construction on the twin nuclear reactors was shut down in the
1980's. Unit one was 96 percent complete and unit two was 55
percent finished at the time.
Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions told constituents at a town hall
meeting Monday in Scottsboro that the plant would provide clean
electricity for years and indicated new plants are licensed by
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for 50 to 60 years.
He said a decision to use the Bellefonte site would have a
positive economic impact on Jackson County and surrounding
areas, bringing in as many as one-thousand jobs during the
construction phase.
Copyright © 2002 The Tuscaloosa News
*****************************************************************
22 NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeuards Subcommittee Meeting on
FR Doc E5-2172
[Federal Register: May 4, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 85)] [Notices]
[Page 23237-23238] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr04my05-102]
Fire Protection; Notice of Meeting The ACRS Subcommittee on Fire
Protection will hold a meeting on May 17, 2005, Room T-2B3, 11545
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: Tuesday,
May 17, 2005--8:30 a.m. until 12 Noon. The purpose of this
meeting is to discuss the Draft Regulatory Guide, DG-1139,
``Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Fire Protection for Existing
Light-Water Nuclear Power Plants.'' This regulatory guide
provides guidance for use in complying with the requirements that
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has promulgated for
risk- informed, performance-based fire protection programs that
meet the requirements of Title 10, Section 50.48(c), of the Code
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 50.48(c)) and the 2001 Edition of
the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standard, NFPA
805, ``Performance-Based Standard for Fire Protection for
Light-Water Reactor Electric Generating Stations.'' The
Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with
the NRC staff, representatives of the Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI), and other interested persons regarding this
matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze
relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and
actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official,
Dr. Hossein P. Nourbakhsh (Telephone: (301) 415-5622) five days
prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate
[[Page 23238]] arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings
will be permitted.
Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by
contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and
4:15 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged
to contact the above named individual at least two working days
prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to
the agenda.
Dated: April 27, 2005.
Michael L. Scott, Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW.
[FR Doc. E5-2172 Filed 5-3-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
23 NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Meeting of the
FR Doc E5-2173
[Federal Register: May 4, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 85)] [Notices]
[Page 23238] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr04my05-103]
Subcommittee on Early Site Permits; Notice of Meeting The ACRS
Subcommittee on Early Site Permits will hold a meeting on May 16,
2005, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: Monday,
May 16, 2005--8:30 a.m. until 1 p.m. The Subcommittee will
discuss and review the application for an early site permit for
the Grand Gulf site and the staff's draft safety evaluation
report related to that application.
The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions
with representatives of the NRC staff, System Energy Resources,
Inc. (the applicant), and other interested persons regarding this
matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze
relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and
actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official,
Dr. Medhat M. El-Zeftawy (telephone (301) 415-6889) five days
prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate
arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be
permitted.
Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by
contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and
4:15 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged
to contact the above named individual at least two working days
prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to
the agenda.
Dated: April 27, 2005.
Michael L. Scott, Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW.
[FR Doc. E5-2173 Filed 5-3-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
24 NRC: Notice of Opportunity To Comment on Model Safety Evaluation on
FR Doc E5-2174
[Federal Register: May 4, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 85)] [Notices]
[Page 23238-23252] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr04my05-104]
Technical Specification Improvement for Combustion Engineering
Plants to Risk-Inform Requirements Regarding Selected Required
Action End States Using the Consolidated Line Item Improvement
Process AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Request for comment.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the staff of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) has prepared a model safety
evaluation (SE) relating to changes in Combustion Engineering
(CE) plant required action end state requirements in technical
specifications (TS).
The NRC staff has also prepared a model
no-significant-hazards-consideration (NSHC) determination
relating to this matter. The purpose of these models is to permit
the NRC to efficiently process amendments that propose to adopt
technical specifications changes, designated as TSTF- 422,
related to Topical Report CE NPSD-1186, Rev. 00, ``Technical
Justification for the Risk Informed Modification to Selected
Required Action End States for CEOG PWRs,'' which was approved by
an NRC SE dated July 17, 2001. Licensees of CE nuclear power
reactors to which the models apply could then request amendments,
confirming the applicability of the SE and NSHC determination to
their reactors. The NRC staff is requesting comment on the model
SE and model NSHC determination prior to announcing their
availability for referencing in license amendment applications.
DATES: The comment period expires June 3, 2005. Comments received
after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so,
but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for
comments received on or before this date.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted either electronically or via
U.S. mail. Submit written comments to Chief, Rules and Directives
Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of
Administration, Mail Stop: T-6 D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Hand deliver comments to:
11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:45 a.m. and
4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Copies of comments received may be
examined at the NRC's Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike
(Room O-1F21), Rockville, Maryland.
Comments may be submitted by electronic mail to CLIIP@nrc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Boyce, Mail Stop: O-12H4,
Division of Inspection Program Management, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone 301-415-0184.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Regulatory Issue Summary
2000-06, ``Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process for
Adopting Standard Technical Specifications Changes for Power
Reactors,'' was issued on March 20, 2000. The consolidated line
item improvement process (CLIIP) is intended to improve the
efficiency of NRC licensing processes, by processing proposed
changes to the standard technical specifications (STS) in a
manner that supports subsequent license amendment applications.
The CLIIP includes an opportunity for the public to comment on
proposed changes to the STS after a preliminary assessment by the
NRC staff and finding that the change will likely be offered for
adoption by licensees. This notice solicits comment on a proposed
change to the STS that allows changes in CE plant required action
end state requirements in technical specifications, if risk is
assessed and managed.
The CLIIP directs the NRC staff to evaluate any comments received
for a proposed change to the STS and to either reconsider the
change or announce the availability of the change for adoption by
licensees. Licensees opting to apply for this TS change are
responsible for reviewing the staff's evaluation, referencing the
applicable technical justifications, and providing any necessary
plant-specific information. Each amendment application made in
response to the notice of availability will be processed and
noticed in accordance with applicable NRC rules and procedures.
This notice involves the changes in CE plant required action end
state requirements in TS, if risk is assessed and managed. The
change was proposed in Topical Report CE NPSD-1186, Rev. 00,
``Technical Justification for the Risk Informed Modification to
Selected
[[Page 23239]] Required Action End States for CEOG PWRs,'' which
was approved by an NRC SE dated July 17, 2001. This change was
proposed for incorporation into the STS by the owners groups
participants in the Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) and
is designated TSTF-422.
TSTF-422 can be viewed on the NRC's Web page at
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/techspecs.html .
Applicability This proposal to modify TS requirements by the
adoption of TSTF-422 is applicable to all licensees of CE plants
who have adopted or will adopt, in conjunction with the proposed
change, TS requirements for a Bases control program consistent
with the TS Bases Control Program described in Section 5.5 of the
applicable vendor's STS, and commit to WCAP-16364-NP, Rev [0],
``Implementation Guidance for Risk Informed Modification to
Selected Required Action End States at Combustion Engineering
NSSS Plants (TSTF-422).'' To efficiently process the incoming
license amendment applications, the staff requests that each
licensee applying for the changes proposed in TSTF-422 include
Bases for the proposed TS consistent with the Bases proposed in
TSTF-422. In addition, licensees that have not adopted
requirements for a Bases control program by converting to the
improved STS or by other means, are requested to include the
requirements for a Bases control program consistent with the STS
in their application for the proposed change. The need for a
Bases control program stems from the need for adequate regulatory
control of some key elements of the proposal that are contained
in the proposed Bases in TSTF-422.
The staff is requesting that the Bases be included with the
proposed license amendments in this case because the changes to
the TS and the changes to the associated Bases form an integral
change to a plant's licensing bases. To ensure that the overall
change, including the Bases, includes appropriate regulatory
controls, the staff plans to condition the issuance of each
license amendment on the licensee's incorporation of the changes
into the Bases document and on requiring the licensee to control
the changes in accordance with the Bases Control Program. The
CLIIP does not prevent licensees from requesting an alternative
approach or proposing the changes without the requested Bases and
Bases control program. However, deviations from the approach
recommended in this notice may require additional review by the
NRC staff and may increase the time and resources needed for the
review.
Public Notices This notice requests comments from interested
members of the public within 30 days of the date of publication
in the Federal Register. After evaluating the comments received
as a result of this notice, the staff will either reconsider the
proposed change or announce the availability of the change in a
subsequent notice (perhaps with some changes to the safety
evaluation or the proposed NSHC determination as a result of
public comments). If the staff announces the availability of the
change, licensees wishing to adopt the change must submit an
application in accordance with applicable rules and other
regulatory requirements. For each application, the staff will
publish a notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to
facility operating licenses, a proposed NSHC determination, and a
notice of opportunity for a hearing. The staff will also publish
a notice of issuance of an amendment to operating license to
announce the modification of plant required action end state
requirements in technical specifications.
Proposed Safety Evaluation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Consolidated Line Item
Improvement, Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Change
TSTF-422, Risk Informed Modifications to Selected Required Action
End States 1.0 Introduction On January 23, 2003, the Nuclear
Energy Institute (NEI) Risk Informed Technical Specifications
Task Force (RITSTF) submitted a proposed change, TSTF-422,
Revision 1, to the Combustion Engineering (CE) standard technical
specifications (STS) (NUREG-1432) on behalf of the industry.
TSTF-422, Revision 1, is a proposal to incorporate the Combustion
Engineering Owners Group (CEOG) approved Topical Report CE
NPSD-1186, Rev. 00, ``Technical Justification for the Risk
Informed Modification to Selected Required Action End States for
CEOG PWRs'' (Reference 1), into the CE STS (Note: The proposed
changes are made with respect to STS, Rev. 3, unless otherwise
stated). This proposal is one of the industry's initiatives being
developed under the Risk Management Technical Specifications
(RMTS) program. These initiatives are intended to maintain or
improve safety through the incorporation of risk assessment and
management techniques in technical specifications (TS), while
reducing unnecessary burden and making technical specification
requirements consistent with the Commission's other risk-
informed regulatory requirements, in particular the maintenance
rule.
The Code of Federal Regulations, 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(i),
``Technical Specifications; Limiting Conditions for Operation,''
states: ``When a limiting condition for operation of a nuclear
reactor is not met, the licensee shall shut down the reactor or
follow any remedial action permitted by the technical
specifications until the condition can be met.'' TS provide a
completion time (CT) for the plant to meet the limiting condition
for operation (LCO). If the LCO or the remedial action cannot be
met, then the reactor is required to be shutdown. When the
individual plant technical specifications were written, the
shutdown condition or end state specified was usually cold
shutdown.
Topical Report CE NPSD-1186 provides the technical basis to
change certain required end states when the TS CTs for remaining
in power operation are exceeded. Most of the requested TS changes
are to permit an end state of hot shutdown (Mode 4) rather than
an end state of cold shutdown (Mode 5) contained in the current
TS. The request was limited to: (1) Those end states where entry
into the shutdown mode is for a short interval, (2) entry is
initiated by inoperability of a single train of equipment or a
restriction on a plant operational parameter, unless otherwise
stated in the applicable TS, and (3) the primary purpose is to
correct the initiating condition and return to power operation as
soon as is practical.
The TS for CE plants define six operational modes. In general,
they are: Mode 1--Power Operation.
Mode 2--Reactor Startup.
Mode 3--Hot Standby. Reactor coolant system (RCS) temperature
above 300[deg]F (TS specific) and RCS pressure that can range up
to power operation pressure. Shutdown cooling (SDC) systems can
sometimes be operated in the lower range of Mode 3 temperature
and pressure.
Mode 4--Hot Shutdown. RCS temperature can range from the lower
value of Mode 3 to the upper value of Mode 5. Pressure is
generally (but not always) low enough for SDC system operation.
Mode 5--Cold Shutdown. RCS temperature is below 200[deg]F and RCS
pressure is consistent with operation of the SDC system.
Mode 6--Refueling. Operation is in Mode 6 if one or more reactor
vessel head bolts have been de-tensioned. RCS
[[Page 23240]] temperature is below 200[deg]F and RCS pressure is
generally equal to containment pressure.
Criticality is not allowed in Modes 3 through 6, inclusive.
The CEOG request generally is to allow a Mode 4 end state rather
than a Mode 5 end state for selected initiating conditions.
2.0 Regulatory Evaluation In 10 CFR 50.36, the Commission
established its regulatory requirements related to the content of
TS. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.36(c)(1)-(5), TS are required to
include items in the following five specific categories related
to station operation: (1) Safety limits, limiting safety system
settings, and limiting control settings; (2) limiting conditions
for operation (LCOs); (3) surveillance requirements (SRs); (4)
design features; and (5) administrative controls. The rule does
not specify the particular requirements to be included in a
plant's TS. As stated in 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(i), the ``Limiting
conditions for operation are the lowest functional capability or
performance levels of equipment required for safe operation of
the facility. When a limiting condition for operation of a
nuclear reactor is not met, the licensee shall shut down the
reactor or follow any remedial action permitted by the technical
specifications * * * .'' The Reference 1 request states:
``preventing plant challenges during shutdown conditions has
been, and continues to be, an important aspect of ensuring safe
operation of the plant. Past events demonstrate that risk of core
damage associated with entry into, and operation in, shutdown
cooling is not negligible and should be considered when a plant
is required to shutdown. Therefore, the TS should encourage plant
operation in the steam generator heat removal mode whenever
practical, and require SDC entry only when it is a risk
beneficial alternative to other actions.'' Controlling shutdown
risk encompasses control of conditions that can cause potential
initiating events and response to those initiating events that do
occur. Initiating events are a function of equipment malfunctions
and human error. Response to events is a function of plant
sensitivity, ongoing activities, human error, defense-in-depth,
and additional equipment malfunctions. In the end state changes
under consideration here, a component or train has generally
resulted in a failure to meet a TS and a controlled shutdown has
begun because a TS CT requirement is not met.
Most of today's shutdown TS and the design basis analyses were
developed under the perception that putting a plant in cold
shutdown would result in the safest condition and the design
basis analyses would bound credible shutdown accidents. In the
late 1980s and early 1990s, the NRC and licensees recognized that
this perception was incorrect and took corrective actions to
improve shutdown operation. At the same time, standard TS were
developed and many licensees improved their TS. Since a shutdown
rule was expected, almost all TS changes involving power
operation, including a revised end state requirement were
postponed in anticipation of enactment of a shutdown rule (see,
for example, Reference 2). However, in the mid 1990s, the
Commission decided a shutdown rule was not necessary in light of
industry improvements.
In practice, the realistic needs during shutdown operation are
often addressed via voluntary actions and application of 10 CFR
50.65 (Reference 3), the maintenance rule. Section 50.65(a)(4)
states: ``Before performing maintenance activities * * * the
licensee shall assess and manage the increase in risk that may
result from the proposed maintenance activities. The scope of the
assessment may be limited to structures, systems, and components
that a risk-informed evaluation process has shown to be
significant to public health and safety.'' Regulatory Guide (RG)
1.182 (Reference 4) provides guidance on implementing the
provisions of 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) by endorsing the revised Section
11 (published separately) to NUMARC 93-01, Revision 2 (Reference
5). The revised section 11 of NUMARC 93-01, Revision 2 , was
subsequently incorporated into Revision 3 of NUMARC 93-01.
However, Revision 3 has not yet been formally endorsed by the
NRC.
3.0 Technical Evaluation The changes proposed in TSTF-422 are
consistent with the changes proposed and justified in Topical
Report CE NPSD-1186, and approved by the associated SE of July
17, 2001 (Reference 6). The evaluation included in Reference 6,
as appropriate and applicable to the changes of TSTF-422
(Reference 7), is reiterated here and differences from the SE
(Reference 6) are justified. [NOTE: Licensees must commit to
WCAP- 16364-NP, Rev [0], ``Implementation Guidance for Risk
Informed Modification to Selected Required Action End States at
Combustion Engineering NSSS Plants (TSTF-422),'' (Reference 8)
addressing a variety issues such as considerations and
compensatory actions for risk significant plant configurations.]
An overview of the generic evaluation and associated risk
assessment will be provided, along with a summary of the
associated TS changes justified by the SE (Reference 6).
3.1 Risk Assessment The objective of the risk assessment in
Topical Report CE NPSD-1186 was to show that the risk changes due
to changes in TS end states are either negative (i.e., a net
decrease in risk) or neutral (i.e., no risk change).
Topical Report CE NPSD-1186 documents a risk-informed analysis of
the proposed TS changes. Probabilistic risk analysis (PRA)
results and insights are used, in combination with results of
deterministic assessments, to identify and propose changes in end
states for all CE plants. This is consistent with guidance
provided in RG 1.174, ``An Approach for Using Probabilistic Risk
Assessment in Risk-Informed Decisions on Plant-Specific Changes
to the Licensing Basis,'' (Reference 9), and RG 1.177, ``An
Approach for Plant-Specific, Risk- Informed Decisionmaking:
Technical Specifications,'' (Reference 10). The three-tiered
approach documented in RG 1.177 was followed. The first tier
includes the assessment of the risk impact of the proposed change
for comparison to acceptance guidelines consistent with the
Commission's Safety Goal Policy Statement (RG 1.174). In
addition, the first tier aims at ensuring that there are no time
intervals associated with the implementation of the proposed TS
end state changes during which there is an increase in the
probability of core damage or large early release with respect to
the current end states. The second tier addresses the need to
preclude potentially high-risk configurations which could result
if equipment is taken out of service during implementation of the
proposed TS change. The third tier addresses the application of
10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) for identifying risk-significant
configurations resulting from maintenance or other operational
activities and taking appropriate compensatory measures to avoid
such configurations. The scope of the topical report and the
associated SE were limited to identifying changes in end state
conditions that excluded continued power operation as an
acceptable end state, regardless of the risk.
CEOG's risk assessment approach was found comprehensive and
acceptable. In addition, the analyses show that the criteria of
the three-tiered approach for allowing TS changes are met as
explained below:
[[Page 23241]] Risk Impact of the Proposed Change (Tier 1). The
risk changes associated with the proposed TS changes, in terms of
mean yearly increases in core damage frequency (CDF) and large
early release frequency (LERF), are risk neutral or risk
beneficial. In addition, there are no time intervals associated
with the implementation of the proposed TS end state changes
during which there is an increase in the probability of core
damage or large early release with respect to the current end
states.
Avoidance of Risk-Significant Configurations (Tier 2). The need
for some restrictions and enhanced guidance was determined by the
specific TS assessments, documented in WCAP-16364-NP, Rev. 0,
``Implementation Guidance for Risk Informed Modification to
Selected Required Action End States at Combustion Engineering
NSSS Plants (TSTF- 422),'' (Reference 8). These restrictions and
guidance are intended to (1) preclude preventive maintenance and
operational activities on risk- significant equipment
combinations, and (2) identify actions to exit expeditiously a
risk-significant configuration should it occur.
The licensees are expected to commit to following the
implementation guidance in Reference 8. The staff finds that the
proposed restrictions and guidance are adequate for preventing
risk-significant plant configurations.
Configuration Risk Management (Tier 3). These are programs in
place to comply with 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4) to assess and manage the
risk from proposed maintenance activities. These programs can
support licensee decisionmaking regarding the appropriate actions
to control risk whenever a risk-informed TS is entered.
3.2 Assessment of TS Changes The changes proposed in TSTF-422 are
consistent with the changes proposed in topical report CE
NPSD-1186 and approved by the NRC SE of July 17, 2001. Only those
changes proposed in TSTF-422 are addressed in this SE. The SE
information and justifications are not duplicated in this
document; see ML011980047 in ADAMS for the topical report SE
(Reference 6). The SE and associated topical report address the
entire fleet of CE plants, and the plants adopting TSTF-422 must
confirm the applicability of the changes to their plant.
Following are the proposed changes, including a synposis of the
STS LCO, the change, and a brief conclusion of acceptability.
3.2.1 TS 3.5.4--Refueling Water Storage Tank (RWST) The RWST is a
source of borated water for the ECCS.
LCO: The RWST shall be operable in Modes 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Condition Requiring Entry into End State: When the RWST is
inoperable in Modes 1, 2, 3, and 4 due to boron concentration not
being within limits and not corrected within 8 hours.
Proposed Modification for End State Required Actions: Modify
action statement to allow for Mode 3 or Mode 4 end state when
boron concentration is outside of the operating band for a period
greater than 8 hours and create a new action (e.g., 3.5.4 D.2) to
maintain the current end state for other inoperabilities than
boron concentration out of limits.
Assessment: The requested change is unlikely to have a
significant impact on safety because deviations are likely to be
small. Most of the need for a large volume of water from the RWST
in Mode 3 is due to low probability events such as
loss-of-coolant-accident (LOCA), and avoiding equipment
transitions associated with some mode changes, and thereby
avoiding risk associated with those changes.
3.2.2 TS 3.3.6--ESFAS Logic and Manual Trip--(Digital) The
engineered safety feature actuation system (ESFAS) provides an
automatic actuation of the ESFs which are required for accident
mitigation. A set of two manual trip circuits is also provided,
which uses the actuation logic and initiation logic circuits to
perform the trip function.
LCO: Six channels of ESFAS matrix logic, four channels of ESFAS
initiation logic, two channels of actuation logic and two
channels of manual trip shall be operable for the safety
injection actuation signal (SIAS), containment isolation
actuation signal (CIAS), containment cooling actuation signal
(CCAS), recirculation actuation signal (RAS), containment spray
actuation signal (CSAS), main steam isolation signal, and
emergency feedwater actuation system EFAS-1 and EFAS-2. The LCO
is applicable in Modes 1, 2, and 3 for all functions for all
components and in Mode 4 for initiation logic, actuation logic,
and manual trip for SIAS, CIAS, CCAS, and RAS. (The specific
applicability of CCAS or equivalent systems (e.g., CSAS) may vary
among utilities.) Condition Requiring Entry into End State:
Condition F of the TS is entered when: 1. One manual trip
circuit, initiating logic circuit, or actuation logic circuit is
inoperable for RAS, SIAS, CIAS, or CCAS, for more than 48 hours
(Conditions A, B & D), or, 2. Two initiating logic circuits in
the same trip leg for RAS, SIAS, CIAS, or CCAS are inoperable for
more than 48 hours (Condition C).
Proposed Modification for End State Required Actions: Modify the
Mode 5 end state required action to allow component repair in
Mode 4 of all functions of the CCAS and RAS initiation/logic
function of the SIAS and CIAS. Entry into Mode 4 is proposed at
12 hours. No change was requested for TS 3.5.3, ECCS-shutdown.
Assessment: The primary objective of the ESFAS logic and manual
trip in Mode 4 is to provide a SIAS to the operable HPSI train
and CIAS to ensure containment isolation. For TS 3.5.3,
ECCS-Shutdown, to be met, the manual trip and actuation logic
associated with that train of HPSI must be available in Mode 4.
No other Mode 4 restrictions are required. By including the
actuation logic in Mode 4, the effort in establishing HPSI
following a LOCA or other inventory loss event is minimized.
Similarly, by requiring one CIAS manual trip and actuation relay
group to be operable, the plant operating staff does not have to
operate every containment penetration manually following an event
that may lead to radiation releases to the containment.
In general, the CCAS is used to automatically actuate the
containment heat removal systems (containment recirculation fan
coolers) to prevent containment overpressurization during a range
of accidents which release inventory to the containment,
including large break LOCAs, small break LOCAs, or main steam
line breaks or feedwater line breaks inside containment. This
signal is typically actuated by high containment pressure. Based
on the lower stored energy in the RCS and lesser core heat
generation, short term containment pressure following a LOCA or
main steam line break would be less than the current design
containment strength. Ample instrumentation is available to the
operator to diagnose the onset of the event and to take
appropriate mitigating actions (actuation of the containment fan
coolers and/or sprays) prior to a potential containment threat.
Following a LOCA, the RAS is used to automatically perform the
switchover from the SI mode of heat removal to the sump
recirculation mode of heat removal. RAS times in Mode 4 are
expected to be longer than those associated with Mode 1 and
available instrumentation is sufficient to alert the operator to
the need for switchover.
[[Page 23242]] Since the SIAS and CIAS signals perform numerous
actions, manual trip and actuation for these signals should be
retained in Mode 4. In particular, the operability of a single
train of HPSI is required in Mode 4. Therefore, the associated
actuation circuit and manual trip circuit for SIAS should be
maintained available so that automatic lineup of HPSI can be
established following a LOCA. Both isolation valves in the
appropriate containment penetrations are required to be operable
during Mode 4. However, the large number of actions required to
isolate these penetrations, given an event, indicates that an
extended unavailability of CIAS is not desired. We conclude from
a comparison of plant conditions, event response, and risk
characteristics, including the discussions of Sections 3 and 4 of
Reference 6, that there is no net benefit from requiring a Mode 5
end state as opposed to a Mode 4 end state.
3.2.3 TS 3.3.8--(Digital) Containment Purge Isolation Signal The
containment purge isolation signal (CPIS) provides automatic or
manual isolation of any open containment purge valves upon
indication of high containment airborne radiation.
LCO: One CPIS channel shall be operable in Modes 1, 2, 3, and 4,
during core alterations, and during movement of irradiated fuel
assemblies within containment.
Condition Requiring Entry into End State: CPIS (manual trip
actuation logic), or one or more required channels of radiation
monitors is inoperable and the required actions associated with
the TS allowed outage time (AOT) or completion time (CT) have not
been met.
Proposed Modification for End State Required Actions: Modify Mode
5 end state required action to allow component repair in Mode 4.
Entry time into Mode 4 is proposed at 12 hours.
Assessment: TS for Modes 1 through 4 allow plant operation with
the containment mini-purge valves open. Following an accident,
unavailability of the CPIS in Mode 4 would prevent automatic
containment purge isolation. Without automatic isolation, the
operator must manually isolate the containment purge. Since Mode
4 core damage events will evolve more slowly than similar events
at Mode 1, the operator has adequate time and plant indications
to identify and respond to an emergent core damage event and
secure the containment purge.
The staff addressed Mode 4 versus Mode 5 operation in Sections 3
and 4 of Reference 6, and concluded there is essentially no
benefit in moving to Mode 5 under many conditions. Further, there
is a potential benefit to remaining in Mode 4 on SG heat removal
because additional risk benefits are realized by averting the
risks associated with the alignment of the SDC system.
The CEOG recommended and provided implementation guidance stating
that, when the CPIS is disabled, the operating staff should be
alerted and operation of the containment mini-purge should be
restricted. It further recommended consideration should be given
to maintaining availability of CIAS during the CPIS Mode 4
repair. The staff endorses these recommendations. In addition,
licensees must commit to the implementation guidance contained in
Reference 8.
3.2.4 TS 3.3.8 (Analog) and TS 3.3.9--(Digital), Control Room
Isolation Signal The control room isolation signal (CRIS)
initiates actuation of the emergency radiation protection system
and terminates the normal supply of outside air to the control
room to minimize operator radiation exposure.
LCO: One channel of CRIS shall be operable. The channel consists
of manual trip, actuation logic, and radiation monitors for
iodine/ particulates and gases.
Condition Requiring Entry into End State: Both channels of CRIS
are inoperable (and one control room emergency air cleanup system
train is not realigned to the emergency mode within one hour). A
channel consists of actuation logic, manual trip, and
particulate/iodine and gaseous radiation monitors.
Proposed Modification for End State Required Actions: It is
proposed that the existing TS be modified to change the Mode 5
end state required action to allow component repair in Mode 4.
Entry time into Mode 4 is 12 hours.
Assessment: The CRIS includes two independent, redundant
subsystems, including actuation trains. Control room isolation
also occurs on a SIAS. The CRIS functions must be operable in
Modes 1, 2, 3, and 4 [5, 6], [during core alterations], and
during movement of irradiated fuel assemblies to ensure a
habitable environment for the control room operators.
This system responds to radiation releases from fuel.
Adequate in- plant radiation sensors (for example, containment
high area radiation monitors (CHARMs)) are available to identify
the need for control room (CR) isolation or shield building
filtration (if appropriate).
In Mode 4, the transient will unfold more slowly than at power.
Therefore sufficient time exists for the operator to take manual
action to realign the control room emergency air cleanup system
(CREACUS).
The staff addressed Mode 4 versus Mode 5 operation in Sections 3
and 4 of Reference 6, and concluded there is essentially no
benefit in moving to Mode 5 under many conditions, including this
condition. Further, there is a potential benefit to remaining in
Mode 4 on SG heat removal because additional risk benefits are
realized by averting the risks associated with the alignment of
the SDC system.
The CEOG recommended and provided implementation guidance stating
that it would be prudent to minimize unavailability of SIAS and
alternate shutdown panel and/or remote shutdown capabilities
during Mode 4 operation with CRIS unavailable. The staff agrees.
In addition, licensees must commit to the implementation guidance
contained in Reference 10.
3.2.5 TS 3.3.9--(Analog) Chemical Volume Control Isolation Signal
The chemical volume control system (CVCS) isolation signal
provides protection from radioactive contamination, as well as
personnel and equipment protection in the event of a letdown line
rupture outside containment.
LCO: Four channels of west penetration room/letdown heat
exchanger room pressure sensing and two actuation logic channels
shall be operable.
Condition Requiring Entry into End State: The Mode 5 end state
entry (Condition D) is required when: 1. One actuation logic
channel is inoperable, or 2. One CVCS isolation instrument
channel is inoperable for a time period in excess of the plant
AOT/CT (48 hours).
Proposed Modification for End State Required Actions: Modify
Condition D of TS to accommodate a Mode 4 end state when the
required actions are not completed in the specified time.
Assessment: Transition to lower temperature states requires the
CVCS. Thus, by the time the plant is placed in Mode 4, the system
should have successfully operated to borate the RCS. The CEOG
stated that, consequently, there is adequate time to identify the
need for CVCS isolation and for the operator to terminate letdown
and secure charging.
The staff addressed Mode 4 versus Mode 5 operation in Sections 3
and 4 of Reference 6, and concluded there is essentially no
benefit in moving to
[[Page 23243]] Mode 5 under many conditions. Further, there is a
potential benefit to remaining in Mode 4 on SG heat removal
because additional risk benefits are realized by averting the
risks associated with the alignment of the SDC system.
3.2.6 TS 3.3.10 (Analog)--Shield Building Filtration Actuation
Signal The shield building filtration actuation signal (SBFAS) is
required to ensure filtration of the air space between the
containment and shield building during a LOCA.
LCO: Two channels of SBFAS automatic and two channels of manual
trip shall be operable.
Condition Requiring Entry into End State: Shutdown Condition B of
TS 3.3.10 requires transition to Mode 5. This required action is
to be taken when one Manual Trip or Actuation Logic channel is
inoperable for a time period exceeding the TS AOT/CT (48 hours).
Proposed Modification for End State Required Actions: Modify Mode
5 end state required action to allow component repair in Mode 4.
Assessment: With one SBFAS channel inoperable, the system may
still provide its function via its redundant channel. These
systems provide post-accident radiation protection to on-site
staff and/or the public. Since these systems respond to radiation
releases from fuel, adequate in-plant radiation sensors (such as
CHARMs) are available to identify the need for CR isolation or
shield building filtration (if appropriate).
The staff addressed Mode 4 versus Mode 5 operation in Sections 3
and 4 of Reference 6, and concluded there is essentially no
benefit in moving to Mode 5 under many conditions, including this
condition. Further, there is a potential benefit to remaining in
Mode 4 on SG heat removal because additional risk benefits are
realized by averting the risks associated with the alignment of
the SDC system.
3.2.7 TS 3.4.6--RCS Loops--Mode 4 An RCS loop consists of a hot
leg, SG, crossover pipe between the SG and an RCP, the RCP, and a
cold leg. The operational meaning with respect to this TS is that
water flows from the reactor vessel into a hot leg, either into a
SG or a SDC system where it is cooled, and is returned to the
reactor vessel via one or more cold legs. The flow rate must be
sufficient to both cool the core and to ensure good boron mixing.
LCO: Two loops or trains consisting of any combination of RCS
loops and SDC trains shall be operable and at least one loop or
train shall be in operation while in Mode 4.
Condition Requiring Entry into End State: Condition B of the STS
Revision 1 requires that with one required SDC train inoperable
and two required RCS loops inoperable for 24 hours, the plant be
maneuvered into Mode 5. Required Action A.2 of STS Revisions 2
and 3 require proceeding to Mode 5 within 24 hours with a
required loop inoperable and a SDC loop operable (the STS
Revision 1, 2 and 3 situations and results are similar, yet
worded differently). The short completion time and the
low-temperature end state reflect the importance of maintaining
these paths for heat removal.
Proposed Modification for End State Required Actions: When RCS
loops are unavailable with the inoperability of one train of SDC,
but at least one SG heat removal path can be established, modify
the TS to change the end state from Mode 5 to Mode 4 with RCS
heat removal accomplished via the steam generators.
Assessment: This TS requires that two loops or trains consisting
of any combination of RCS cooling loops or SDC trains shall be
operable and at least one loop or train shall be in operation to
provide forced flow in the RCS for decay heat removal and to mix
boron. LCO action 3.4.6 addresses the condition when the two SDC
trains are inoperable. In that condition, the STS recognizes that
Mode 5 SDC operation is not possible and continued Mode 4
operation is allowed until the condition may be exited. Condition
B of STS Revision 2 and Required Action A.2 of STS Revision 3 are
concerned with the unavailability of forced circulation in two
RCS loops and the inoperability of one train of SDC. Upon failure
to satisfy the LCO, the current STS drives the plant to Mode 5.
The requested change reflects the risk of Mode 5 operation with
one SDC system train inoperable and two RCS loops not in
operation.
The change will allow heat removal to be achieved in Mode 4 using
either SDC or, if available, the steam generators with RCS/core
heat removal driven by natural convection flows. Reactivity
concerns are addressed by requiring natural circulation prior to
RCP restart.
Furthermore, as already noted in the STS Bases, if unavailability
of RCS loops is due to single SDC train unavailability, staying
in a state with minimal reliance on SDC is preferred (Mode 4) due
to the diversity in RCS heat removal modes during Mode 4
operation.
3.2.8 TS 3.6.2--Containment Air Locks Containment air locks
provide a controlled personnel passage between outside and inside
the containment building with two doors/ door-seals in series
with a small compartment between the doors.
When operable, only one door can be opened at a time, thus
providing a continuous containment building pressure boundary.
The two doors provide redundant closures.
LCO: [Two] containment air lock[s] shall be operable in Modes 1,
2, 3, and 4.
Condition Requiring Entry into End State: Entry into a Mode 5 end
state is required when: 1. One or more containment air locks with
one containment air lock door inoperable or, 2. One or more
containment air locks with containment air lock interlock
mechanism inoperable, or 3. One or more containment air locks
inoperable for other reasons, and 4. The required action not
completed within the specified AOT/CT.
Proposed Modification for End State Required Actions: Modify TS
to accommodate Mode 4 end state within the Condition D required
Action to shutdown. Mode 4 entry is proposed within 12 hours of
expiration of the specified AOT/CT for the conditions that
require entry into Mode 4.
Assessment: The TS requirements apply to Modes 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Containment air locks are not required in Mode 5. The
requirements for the containment air locks during Mode 6 are
addressed in LCO 3.9.3, ``Containment Penetrations.'' Operability
of the containment air locks is defined to ensure that leakage
rates (defined in TS 3.6.1) will not exceed permissible values.
These TS are entered when containment leakage is within limits,
but some portion of the containment isolation function is
impaired.
The issue of concern is the appropriate action/end state for
extended repair of an inoperable air lock where air lock doors
are not functional. Changes to the TS are only requested for
conditions when containment leakage is not expected to exceed
that allowed in TS 3.6.1. For example, this means that the
containment air locks must still be functional under expected
conditions during Mode 4 operation.
The staff addressed Mode 4 versus Mode 5 operation in Sections 3
and 4 of Reference 6, and concluded there is essentially no
benefit in moving to Mode 5 under many conditions, including this
condition. Further, there is a potential benefit to remaining in
Mode 4 on SG heat removal because
[[Page 23244]] additional risk benefits are realized by averting
the risks associated with the alignment of the SDC system.
3.2.9 TS 3.6.3--Containment Isolation Valves For systems that
communicate with the containment atmosphere, two redundant
isolation valves are provided for each line that penetrates
containment. For systems that do not communicate with the
containment atmosphere, at least one isolation valve is provided
for each line.
LCO: Each containment isolation valve shall be operable in Modes
1, 2, 3, and 4.
Condition Requiring Entry into End State: A required action to
maneuver the plant into Mode 5 (Condition F) will occur when one
or more penetration flow paths exist with one or more containment
isolation valves inoperable [except for purge valve leakage and
shield building bypass leakage not within limit] and the affected
penetration flow path cannot be isolated within the prescribed
AOT/CT.
Proposed Modification for End State Required Actions: Modify TS
to accommodate a Mode 4 end state (within 12 hours) for any
penetration having one CIV inoperable.
Assessment: Operability of the containment isolation valves
ensures that leakage rates will not exceed permissible values.
This LCO is entered when containment leakage is within limits but
some portion of the containment isolation function is impaired
(e.g., one valve in a two valve path inoperable or containment
purge valves have leakage in excess of TS limits). The issue of
concern in this TS is the appropriate action/end state for
extended repair of an inoperable CIV when one CIV in a single
line is inoperable. The assessment discussed in paragraph 3.2.8
above, is applicable and will not be repeated. 3.2.10 TS
3.6.4--Containment Pressure LCO: Containment pressure shall be
controlled within limits during Modes 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Condition Requiring Entry into End State: A Mode 5 end state
transition is required to be initiated (Condition B) when the
containment pressure is not within limits and the condition is
not corrected within one hour.
Proposed Modification for End State Required Actions: Modify
Condition B of TS to accommodate a Mode 4 end state when the
required actions are not completed in the specified time. Mode 4
entry is proposed at 12 hours.
Assessment: The upper limit on containment pressure in this LCO
results from a containment designed to respond to Mode 1 design
basis accidents while remaining well within the structural
material elastic response capabilities. This effectively
maintains the containment design pressure about a factor of two
or more below the minimum containment failure pressure.
Consequently, small containment pressure challenges at the design
basis pressure have a negligible potential of threatening
containment integrity.
The vacuum lower limit on containment pressure is typically set
by the plant design basis and ensures the ability of the
containment to withstand an inadvertent actuation of the
containment spray (CS) system. The lower limit is of particular
concern to plants with steel shell containment designs--plants
with steel containment control the impact of CS actuation via use
of vacuum breakers. Therefore, for plants with steel shell
containments, if the lower limit pressure specification is
violated, the operators are to confirm operability of the vacuum
breakers. For all plants, when entering this action statement for
violation of low containment pressure limit for a period
projected to exceed one day, one containment spray pump is to be
secured. The licensee shall commit to an implementation guide in
which these actions will be prescribed. Aspects of the assessment
discussed in paragraph 3.2.8 above, are applicable and will not
be repeated.
3.2.11 TS 3.6.5--Containment Air Temperature LCO: Containment
average air temperature shall be -8. The CEOG failed to address
potential operator errors, as discussed in Section 3 of Reference
6, in arriving at this estimate. However, the bounding nature of
the CEOG estimate and the sensitivity study discussed in Section
4, above, appear to be sufficient that this failure will not
significantly influence the conclusion. For the licensee to have
the condition which allows 24 hours to restore the ECCS pump room
boundary when two ECCS PREACS trains are inoperable, they would
have already had to commit to compensatory and preplanned
measures to protect control room operators from potential hazards
such as radioactive contamination, toxic chemicals, smoke,
temperature and relative humidity, and physical security.
Consequently, we conclude that this is a reasonable assessment.
The PREACS is a post-accident mitigation system that is expected
to have little or no impact on CDF. The staff addressed Mode 4
versus Mode 5 operation in Sections 3 and 4 of reference 6, and
concluded there is essentially no benefit in moving to Mode 5
under many conditions. Further, there is a potential benefit to
remaining in Mode 4 on SG heat removal because additional risk
benefits are realized by averting the risks associated with the
alignment of the SDCS.
3.2.21 TS 3.7.15--Penetration Room Emergency Air Cleanup System
The penetration room emergency air cleanup system filters air
from the penetration area between the containment and the
auxiliary building. It consists of two independent, redundant
trains. Each train consists of a heater, demister or prefilter,
HEPA filter, activated charcoal absorber, and a fan. The
penetration room emergency air cleanup system's purpose is to
protect the public from radiological exposure resulting from
containment leakage through penetrations.
LCO: Two PREACS trains shall be operable in Modes 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Inability to return one or two PREACS to service in the allotted
AOT/CT requires plant shutdown to Mode 5 in 36 hours, in
Condition C.
Condition Requiring Entry into End State: One or two penetration
room emergency air cleanup system trains inoperable and required
Action and associated completion time of Conditions A or B, 7
days or 24 hours respectively, not met in Modes 1, 2, 3, or 4.
Proposed Modification for End State Required Actions: Modify Mode
5 end state required action to allow component repair in Mode 4.
Mode 4 entry is proposed to be in 12 hours.
Assessment: The need for the penetration room emergency air
cleanup system is of particular importance following a severe
accident with high levels of airborne radionuclides. These events
are of low probability. (For example, for Mode 1, the plant core
damage frequency is on the order of 2 x 10-5 to 1 x 10-4 per
year). The CEOG estimated the short term need for the PREACS by
assuming: (1) the frequency of Mode 4 core damage events is on
the order of 5 x 10-5 per year, and (2) the probability that the
backup system is unavailable is 1 x 10-2. Then, the probability
that the system will be needed over a given repair interval
(assumed at 7 days or 1.92 x 10-2 years) becomes 5 x 10-5 x 0.01
x 0.0192 1 x 10-8. The penetration room emergency cleanup system
is an accident mitigation system and it has little to no impact
on the likelihood of core damage. The staff addressed Mode 4
versus Mode 5 operation in Sections 3 and 4 of Reference 6, and
concluded there is essentially no benefit in moving to Mode 5
under many conditions, including this condition. Further, there
is a potential benefit to remaining in Mode 4 on SG heat removal
because additional risk benefits are realized by averting the
risks associated with the alignment of the SDC system. For the
licensee to have the condition which allows 24 hours to restore
the penetration room boundary when two PREACS trains are
inoperable, they would have already had to commit to compensatory
and preplanned measures to protect control room operators from
potential hazards such as radioactive contamination, toxic
chemicals, smoke, temperature and relative humidity, and physical
security. Consequently, we conclude that this is a reasonable
assessment.
3.2.22 TS 3.8.1--AC Sources--Operating The unit Class 1E
electrical power distribution system AC sources consist of the
offsite power sources (preferred power sources, normal and
alternate(s)), and the onsite standby power sources (Train A and
Train B emergency diesel generators). In addition, many sites,
including SONGS Units 2 and 3 and St. Lucie Units 1 and 2,
provide a cross-tie capability between units. Palo Verde provides
alternate AC power capability via an onsite combustion
turbine-generator.
As required by General Design Criterion (GDC) 17 of 10 CFR part
50, appendix A, the design of the AC electrical power system
provides independence and redundancy. The onsite Class 1E AC
distribution system is divided into redundant load groups
(trains) so that the loss of any one group does not prevent the
minimum safety functions from being performed. Each train has
connections to two preferred offsite power sources and a single
diesel generator. Offsite power is supplied to the unit
switchyard(s) from the transmission network by two transmission
lines.\6\ From the switchyard(s), two electrically and physically
separated circuits provide AC power, through step down station
auxiliary transformers, to the 4.16 kV ESF buses.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \6\ An offsite circuit consists of all breakers,
transformers, switches, interrupting devices, cabling, and
controls required to transmit power from the offsite transmission
network to the onsite Class 1E ESF bus or buses.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- Certain loads required for accident mitigation are
started in a predetermined sequence in order to prevent
overloading the transformer supplying offsite power to the onsite
Class 1E distribution system. Within 1 minute after the
initiating signal is received, all automatic and permanently
connected loads needed to recover the unit or maintain it in a
safe condition are started via the load sequencer.
In the event of a loss of power, the ESF electrical loads are
automatically connected to the emergency diesel generators (EDGs)
in sufficient time to provide for safe reactor shutdown and to
mitigate the consequences of a design basis accident (DBA) such
as a LOCA.
LCO: The following AC electrical sources shall be operable in
Modes 1, 2, 3, and 4: 1. Two qualified circuits between the
offsite transmission network and the
[[Page 23249]] onsite Class 1E AC electrical power distribution
system; [and] 2. Two EDGs each capable of supplying one train of
the onsite Class 1E AC electrical power distribution system.
Condition Requiring Entry into End State: Plant operators must
bring the plant to Mode 5 within 36 hours following the sustained
inoperability of either or both required offsite circuits, either
or both required EDGs, or one required offsite circuit and one
required EDG.
Proposed Modification for End State Required Actions: Modify
Condition G [Condition F for SONGS] of STS to specify a Mode 4
end state on SG heat removal with a 12 hour entry time.
Assessment: Entry into any of the conditions for the AC power
sources implies that the AC power sources have been degraded and
the single failure protection for ESF equipment may be
ineffective. Consequently, as specified by TS 3.8.1, at present
the plant operators must bring the plant to Mode 5 when the
required action is not completed by the specified time for the
associated condition.
During Mode 4 with the steam generators available, plant risk is
dominated by a LOOP initiating event. If a LOOP were to occur
during degraded AC power system conditions, the number of
redundant and diverse means available for removing heat from the
RCS may vary, depending upon the cause of the degradation. If the
LCO entry resulted from inoperability of both onsite AC sources
(i.e., EDGs) followed by LOOP, a station blackout event will
occur. For this event, the SG inventory may be sufficient for
several hours of RCS cooling without feedwater, and the TDAFW
pump, which does not rely on the AC power sources to operate,
should be available if needed. Further, there should be time to
start any available alternate AC power supplies, such as blackout
diesels. For all other LCO entries which do not lead to station
blackout following LOOP during Mode 4, feed and bleed (for non
3410 megawatt thermal CE-designed PWRs) capability may also be
available for RCS heat removal if the auxiliary feedwater system
should fail. If the RCS conditions are such that the steam
generators are not available for RCS heat removal during Mode 4,
then only the SDC system is available for RCS heat removal for
non-station blackout events.
Switchyard activities, other than those necessary to restore
power, should be prohibited when AC power sources are degraded.
Note that to properly utilize TDAFW pumps the SG pressure should
be maintained above the minimum recommended pressure required to
operate the TDAFW.
The licensee shall commit to an implementation guide in which
compensatory actions will be contained.
The staff addressed Mode 4 versus Mode 5 operation in Sections 3
and 4 of Reference 6, and concluded there is essentially no
benefit in moving to Mode 5 under many conditions. Further, there
is a potential benefit to remaining in Mode 4 on SG heat removal
because additional risk benefits are realized by averting the
risks associated with the alignment of the SDC system. In the
case of a degraded AC power capability, the likelihood of losing
SDC is increased, and the staff judged the plant should be placed
in a condition that maximizes the likelihood of avoiding a
further plant upset of loss of RCS cooling. This will generally
be Mode 4 with SG cooling.
3.2.23 TS 3.8.4--DC Sources--Operating The DC electrical power
system: 1. Provides normal and emergency DC electrical power for
the AC emergency power system, emergency auxiliaries, and control
and switching during all modes of operation, 2. Provides motive
and control power to selected safety related equipment, and 3.
Provides power to preferred AC vital buses (via inverters).
For CEOG Member PWRs (with the exception of San Onofre, Palo
Verde, Calvert Cliffs, and Waterford), the Class 1E, 125-VDC
electrical power system consists of two independent and redundant
safety-related subsystems. The Class 1E, 125-VDC electrical power
system at San Onofre, Palo Verde, and Calvert Cliffs consists of
four independent and redundant Class 1E, safety subsystems. At
Waterford, there are three Class 1E,125-VDC independent and
redundant safety-related subsystems. Each subsystem consists of
one battery, the associated battery charger(s) for each battery,
and all the associated control equipment and interconnecting
cables.
The 125-VDC loads vary among the CE-designed PWRs. At SONGS for
example, Train A and Train B 125-VDC electrical power subsystems
provide control power for the 4.16 KV switchgear and 480-V load
center AC load groups A and B, diesel generator A and B control
systems, and Train A and B control systems, respectively. Train A
and Train B DC subsystems also provide DC power to the Train A
and Train B inverters, as well as to Train A and Train B DC valve
actuators, respectively. The inverters in turn supply power to
the 120-VAC vital buses.
Train C and Train D 125-VDC electrical power subsystems provide
power for nuclear steam supply system control power and DC power
to Train C and Train D inverters, respectively. The Train C DC
subsystem also provides DC power to the TDAFW pump inlet valve
HV-4716 and the TDAFW pump electric governor.
During normal operation, the 125-VDC load is powered from the
battery chargers with the batteries floating on the system. In
case of loss of normal power to the battery charger (which is
powered from the safety related 480-VAC source), the DC load is
automatically powered from the station batteries.
LCO: All of the DC electrical power subsystems are required to be
operable during Modes 1, 2, 3, and 4. At SONGS for example, the
Train A, Train B, Train C, and Train D DC electrical power
subsystems shall be operable in Modes 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Condition Requiring Entry into End State: The plant operators
must bring the plant to Mode 5 within 36 hours following the
sustained inoperability of one DC electrical power subsystem for
a period of 2 hours.
Proposed Modification for End State Required Actions: Modify
Condition B of ISTS to Mode 4, on SG heat removal, end state with
a 12 hour entry requirement.
Assessment: DC power sources have sufficient capacity for the
steady state operation of the connected loads during Modes 1, 2,
3, and 4, while at the same time maintaining the battery banks
fully charged. Each battery charger has sufficient capacity to
restore the battery to its fully charged state within a specified
time period while supplying power to connected loads. The DC
sources are required to be operable during Modes 1, 2, 3, and 4
and connected to the associated DC buses. Mode 5 is the current
state for not restoring an inoperable DC electrical subsystem to
operable status within 2 hours.
If a DC electrical power subsystem is inoperable during Mode 4,
plant risk is dominated by LOOP events. Such an event with
concurrent failure of the unaffected EDG can progress to a
station blackout. These events challenge the capability of the
ESF systems to remove heat from the RCS. Entry into Mode 4 as the
end state when an inoperable DC electrical power subsystem cannot
be restored to operability within 2 hours provides the plant
staff with several resources. For station blackout cases with one
DC power source continuing to
[[Page 23250]] operate, the TDAFW pump is available for RCS heat
removal when steam pressure is adequate. If this pump becomes
unavailable, such as if the other DC sources were lost and the
TDAFW pump could not be satisfactorily operated locally, the lack
of RCS heat removal initiates a boil-down of the steam generator
inventory. Boil-off of steam generator inventory and a certain
amount of RCS inventory must both occur in order to uncover the
core. Under this condition, the plant operators have significant
time to accomplish repair and/or recovery of offsite or onsite
power. For non-station blackout cases, the remaining train(s)
(motor and/or turbine-driven) of auxiliary feedwater are
available for RCS heat removal if steam pressure is adequate as
long as the remaining DC power source continues to operate.
Should the remaining train(s) fail, feed and bleed capability is
available for certain CE-designed PWRs to provide RCS heat
removal as long as the remaining DC power source continues to
operate. Whether or not DC power remains, Mode 4 operation with
an inoperable DC power source provides the plant operators with
diverse means of RCS heat removal and significant time to perform
repairs and recovery before core uncovery occurs.
The staff addressed Mode 4 versus Mode 5 operation in Sections 3
and 4 of Reference 6, and concluded there is essentially no
benefit in moving to Mode 5 under many conditions, including
those applicable here. Further, there is a potential benefit to
remaining in Mode 4 on SG heat removal because additional risk
benefits are realized by averting the risks associated with the
alignment of the SDC system. The licensee shall commit to an
implementation guide in which compensatory actions will be
contained.
3.2.24 TS 3.8.7--Inverters--Operating In Modes 1, 2, 3, and 4,
the inverters provide the preferred source of power for the
120-VAC vital buses which power the reactor protection system
(RPS) and the ESFAS. The inverters are designed to ensure the
availability of AC power for the systems instrumentation required
to shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe condition
after an anticipated operational occurrence or a postulated
design basis accident (DBA). The Class 1E, 125-VDC station
batteries via the respective Class 1E, 125-VDC buses provide an
uninterruptible source of power for the inverters.
LCO: All of the safety related inverters are required to be
operable during Modes 1, 2, 3, and 4. At SONGS for example, the
required Train A, Train B, Train C, and Train D inverters shall
be operable in Modes 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Condition Requiring Entry into End State: The plant operators
must bring the plant to Mode 5 within 36 hours following the
sustained inoperability of one required inverter for a period of
24 hours.
Proposed Modification for End State Required Actions: Modify
Condition B of ISTS to Mode 4 on SG heat removal within a 12 hour
entry requirement.
Assessment: The inverters are included as four independent and
redundant trains. Each inverter provides a dedicated source of
uninterruptible power to its associated vital bus. An operable
inverter requires the associated vital bus to be powered by the
inverter and have output voltage and frequency within the
acceptable range.
In order to be operable, the inverter must also be powered from
the associated station battery. Maintaining the inverters
operable ensures that the redundancy incorporated in the design
of the RPS and ESFAS is maintained. The inverters provide an
uninterruptible source of power, provided the station batteries
are operable, to the vital buses even if the 4.16 kV ESF buses
are not energized. Entry into the LCO required action implies
that the redundancy of the inverters has been degraded.
The inoperability of a single inverter during Mode 4 operation
will have little or no impact on plant risk. The inoperable
inverter causes a loss of power to the associated bistable
channel of the RPS.
Since reactor trip will have been accomplished as part of the
shutdown prior to reaching Mode 4, loss of one inverter will not
impact reactor trip. An inoperable inverter also causes a loss of
power to one of the four ESFAS trip paths. This single condition
should not impact the ability of the ESFAS to perform its
function.
The staff addressed Mode 4 versus Mode 5 operation in Sections 3
and 4 of Reference 6, and concluded there is essentially no
benefit in moving to Mode 5 under many conditions. Further, there
is a potential benefit to remaining in Mode 4 on SG heat removal
because additional risk benefits are realized by averting the
risks associated with the alignment of the SDC system.
3.3 Summary and Conclusions The above requested changes are found
acceptable by the staff. The staff approval applies only to
operation as described and acceptably justified in the References
1 and 6.\7\ To be consistent with the staff's approval, any
licensee requesting to operate in accordance with TSTF-422, as
approved in this safety evaluation, should commit to operate in
accordance with WCAP-16364-NP, ``Implementation Guidance for Risk
Informed Modification to Selected Required Action End States at
Combustion Engineering NSSS Plants (TSTF-422),'' which includes a
requirement for the licensee to commit to adhere to the guidance
of the revised Section 11 of NUMARC-93-01, Revision 3.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \7\ The requested end state changes do not preclude
licensees from entering cold shutdown should they desire to do so
for operational needs or maintenance requirements. In such cases,
the specific requirements associated with the requested end state
changes do not apply.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- 4.0 Verifications and Commitments In order to
efficiently process incoming license amendment applications and
ensure consistent implementation of the change by the various
licensees, the NRC staff requested each licensee requesting the
changes addressed by TSTF-422 using the CLIIP to address the
following plant-specific regulatory commitment.
4.1 Each licensee should make a regulatory commitment to follow
the implementation guidance of WCAP-16364-NP.
The licensee has made a regulatory commitment to follow the
implementation guidance of WCAP-16364-NP.
The NRC staff finds that reasonable controls for the
implementation and for subsequent evaluation of proposed changes
pertaining to the above regulatory commitment(s) can be provided
by the licensee's administrative processes, including its
commitment management program. The NRC staff has agreed that NEI
99-04, Revision 0, ``Guidelines for Managing NRC Commitment
Changes,'' provides reasonable guidance for the control of
regulatory commitments made to the NRC staff (see Regulatory
Issue Summary 2000-17, ``Managing Regulatory Commitments Made by
Power Reactor Licensees to the NRC Staff,'' dated September 21,
2000).
The NRC staff notes that this amendment establishes a voluntary
reporting system for the operating data that is similar to the
system established for the ROP PI program. Should the licensee
choose to incorporate a regulatory commitment into the final
safety analysis report or other document with established
regulatory controls, the associated regulations would define the
appropriate change-control and reporting requirements.
[[Page 23251]] 5.0 State Consultation In accordance with the
Commission's regulations, the [ ] State official was notified of
the proposed issuance of the amendment.
The State official had [(1) no comments or (2) the following
comments--with subsequent disposition by the staff].
6.0 Environmental Consideration The amendments change a
requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility
component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR
part 20 and change surveillance requirements. [For licensees
adding a Bases Control Program: The amendment also changes record
keeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or
requirements.] The NRC staff has determined that the amendments
involve no significant increase in the amounts and no significant
change in the types of any effluents that may be released
offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual
or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has
previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve
no- significant-hazards-considerations, and there has been no
public comment on the finding [FR ]. Accordingly, the amendments
meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth
in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) [and (c)(10)]. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment
need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the
amendments.
7.0 Conclusion The Commission has concluded, on the basis of the
considerations discussed above, that (1) there is reasonable
assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be
endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such
activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's
regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be
inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and
safety of the public.
8.0 References 1. Schneider, Raymond, ``Technical Justification
for the Risk- Informed Modification to Selected Required Action
End States for CEOG Member PWRs,'' Final Report, Task 1115, CE
Nuclear Power LLC., CE NPSD- 1186 Rev 00, January 2001.
2. Federal Register, Vol. 58, No. 139, p. 39136, July 22, 1993.
3. 10 CFR 50.65, Requirements for Monitoring the Effectiveness of
Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants,'' effective November 28,
2000.
4. Regulatory Guide 1.182, ``Assessing and Managing Risk Before
Maintenance Activities at Nuclear Power Plants,'' May 2000.
5. NUMARC 93-01, Industry Guideline for Monitoring the
Effectiveness of Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants, Nuclear
Management and Resource Council, Revision 3, July 2000.
6. Richards, Stuart A., ``Safety Evaluation of CE NPSD-1186, Rev.
00, 'Technical Justification for the Risk-Informed Modification
to Selected Required Action End States for CEOG Member PWRs',''
Letter to CEOG, July 17, 2001.
7. TSTF-422, ``Change in Technical Specification States: CE-NSPD-
1186,'' Risk Informed Technical Specification Task Force.
8. WCAP-16362-NP, ``Implementation Guidance for Risk Informed
Modification to Selected Required Action End States at Combustion
Engineering NSSS Plants (TSTF-422),'' Revision 0, dated November,
2004.
9. Regulatory Guide 1.174, ``An Approach for Using Probabilistic
Risk Assessment in Risk-Informed Decision Making on Plant
Specific Changes to the Licensing Basis,'' USNRC, August 1998.
10. Regulatory Guide 1.177, ``An Approach for Pant Specific Risk-
Informed Decision Making: Technical Specifications,'' USNRC,
August 1998.
Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination
Description of Amendment Request: A change is proposed to the
standard technical specifications (STS) for Combustion
Engineering NSSS Plants (NUREG 1432) and plant specific technical
specifications (TS), to allow for some systems, entry into hot
shutdown rather than cold shutdown to repair equipment, if risk
is assessed and managed consistent with the program in place for
complying with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.65(a)(4). Changes
proposed in TSTF-422 will be made to individual TS for selected
Required Action end states providing this allowance.
Basis for proposed no-significant-hazards-consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), an analysis of the
issue of no-significant-hazards-consideration is presented below:
Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident
Previously Evaluated The proposed change allows a change to
certain required end states when the TS Completion Times for
remaining in power operation are exceeded. Most of the requested
technical specification (TS) changes are to permit an end state
of hot shutdown (Mode 4) rather than an end state of cold
shutdown (Mode 5) contained in the current TS. The request was
limited to: (1) Those end states where entry into the shutdown
mode is for a short interval, (2) entry is initiated by
inoperability of a single train of equipment or a restriction on
a plant operational parameter, unless otherwise stated in the
applicable technical specification, and (3) the primary purpose
is to correct the initiating condition and return to power
operation as soon as is practical. Risk insights from both the
qualitative and quantitative risk assessments were used in
specific TS assessments. Such assessments are documented in
Section 5.5 of CE NPSD-1186, Rev 00, ``Technical Justification
for the Risk-Informed Modification to Selected Required Action
End States for CEOG Member PWRs,'' Final Report, Task 1115, CE
Nuclear Power LLC., January 2001. They provide an integrated
discussion of deterministic and probabilistic issues, focusing on
specific technical specifications, which are used to support the
proposed TS end state and associated restrictions. The staff
finds that the risk insights support the conclusions of the
specific TS assessments. Therefore, the probability of an
accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased, if
at all. The consequences of an accident after adopting proposed
TSTF-422, are no different than the consequences of an accident
prior to adopting TSTF-422.
Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated
are not significantly affected by this change. The addition of a
requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this
change will further minimize possible concerns. Therefore, this
change does not involve a significant increase in the probability
or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 2--The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility
of a New or Different Kind of Accident from any Previously
Evaluated The proposed change does not involve a physical
alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment
will be installed). Allowing a change to
[[Page 23252]] certain required end states when the TS Completion
Times for remaining in power operation are exceeded, i.e., entry
into hot shutdown rather than cold shutdown to repair equipment,
if risk is assessed and managed, will not introduce new failure
modes or effects and will not, in the absence of other unrelated
failures, lead to an accident whose consequences exceed the
consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The addition of a
requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by this
change and the commitment by the licensee to adhere to the
guidance in WCAP-16364-NP, Rev[0], ``Implementation Guidance for
Risk Informed Modification to Selected Required Action End States
at Combustion Engineering NSSS Plants (TSTF-422),'' will further
minimize possible concerns. Thus, this change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an
accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant
Reduction in the Margin of Safety The proposed change allows, for
some systems, entry into hot shutdown rather than cold shutdown
to repair equipment, if risk is assessed and managed. The CEOG's
risk assessment approach is comprehensive and follows staff
guidance as documented in RGs 1.174 and 1.177. In addition, the
analyses show that the criteria of the three- tiered approach for
allowing TS changes are met. The risk impact of the proposed TS
changes was assessed following the three-tiered approach
recommended in RG 1.177. A risk assessment was performed to
justify the proposed TS changes. The net change to the margin of
safety is insignificant. Therefore, this change does not involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based upon the reasoning presented above and the previous
discussion of the amendment request, the requested change does
not involve a significant hazards consideration.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of April 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Theodore R. Tjader, Senior Reactor Engineer, Technical
Specifications Section, Operating Improvements Branch, Division
of Inspection Program Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. E5-2174 Filed 5-3-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
25 ITAR-TASS: Chernobyl cleanup veterans get social allowances in full
04.05.2005, 09.23
NOVOVORONEZH (Voronezh region), May 4 (Itar-Tass) - All 300
Chernobyl cleanup veterans from the city of Novovoronezh have
received in full the social allowances they are entitled to, the
head of the city organization of Chernobyl cleanup veterans
Alexander Anikeyev told Itar-Tass on Wednesday.
The total amount of the debt that has accumulated since the
beginning of 2005 makes up 2.7 million roubles. The demands of
the veterans have been met after they staged two hunger strikes
in Novovoronezh in April.
The protesters demanded that their social allowances be
restored. The allowances were curtailed by the local
administration in line with the federal law replacing social
benefits with monetary compensations.
The city court and the regional prosecutor’s office said that
the decision of the local authorities was illegal, and the
hunger strike was suspended. However, the city authorities
ignored the court ruling, and the hunger strike resumed. It was
stopped at the end of April after the money started going to
their accounts.
Seven of 15 protesters had to be hospitalized in the second
strike.
Staff members of the Novovoronezh nuclear power plant were sent
to clean up the Chernobyl disaster in 1986.
© ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy,
*****************************************************************
26 Brattleboro Reformer: Group asks NRC to act on faulty insulation at VY
May 04, 2005 Brattleboro, VT
By CAROLYN LORIé Reformer Staff
BRATTLEBORO -- The New England Coalition wants officials at the
Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor to reduce power production until
a defective fire barrier used in the plant can be replaced.
On Tuesday, the group filed a petition with the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission calling on the agency to take action.
The material in question goes by the trade name Hemyc. It is
wrapped around cables connected to equipment and is meant to
insulate them during a fire.
Instead, the material, which is made of silicon and ceramic,
shrinks when exposed to high temperatures and does not meet NRC
standards for fire protection.
Rob Williams, spokesman for Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee,
said there is about 50 linear feet of Hemyc in the plant, all of
which will be replaced in six to eight weeks.
Raymond Shadis, technical advisor to the coalition, said
assurances from the company aren't enough and that the NRC
should investigate and confirm that appropriate steps are taken.
"We want them to do their job," said Shadis of the federal
commission.
Nationwide, the material is in 14 reactors, six of which are
owned by Entergy Nuclear.
According to David McIntyre, commission spokesman, NRC
officials met with plant owners from each of the 14 reactors
last week and asked them to justify why their plants did not
need to be shut down while the problem was remedied.
Officials at each plant are to report back to the NRC detailing
how they will address the problem. In the meantime, all of the
plants involved remain in operation.
Removal of the Hemyc may not be required, said McIntyre, as
plant officials could opt to add more layers of the material or
implement other fire protection measures.
McIntyre said that the material shrinks by 8 percent when
exposed to temperatures of 800 degrees Fahrenheit.
According to David Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer with the Union
of Concerned Scientists, the fire barriers were mandated by the
NRC after a fire at the Brown's Ferry nuclear reactor in Alabama
in 1975.
That fire started when an employee was using a candle to check
for air leaks beneath the control room -- a standard practice at
the time.
The fire spread quickly, destroying the entire safety system of
one unit and almost destroying the system of the second unit. A
meltdown of the core was prevented, said Lochbaum, by the
"heroic reactions" of the operators, who jerry-rigged a system
to keep the cooling equipment operating.
It was after that close call that the NRC mandated fire
barriers for cables, although it took several years for the
regulations to be established.
Concerns about the effectiveness of Hemyc surfaced as early as
1999. According to McIntyre, the agency is taking action now
because conclusive tests on the product were only recently
completed.
Others, however, accused the agency of working at a "glacial"
rate and of retreating from enforcing its own regulations.
Paul Gunter, who heads the Reactor Watchdog Project for the
non-profit Nuclear Information and Resource Service, said
problems with fire barrier material arose in 1992, when a
product known as Thermo-lag was found to be defective.
According to Gunter, in 1998 -- six years after the product was
deemed substandard -- 24 reactors had not replaced the material.
Instead of taking enforcement action, said Gunter, the NRC
allowed industry officials to establish a number of steps
operators could take to compensate for the deficiencies of the
product.
"They are effectively nullifying defense in depth," said Gunter.
If the NRC accepts the coalition's petition for review, the
agency can take 120 days from the date of acceptance to make a
final decision.
Copyright ©1999-2005 New England Newspapers, Inc.,
*****************************************************************
27 Online NewsHour: An Illinois Community's Debate Over a Potential Nuclear Reactor
-- May 3, 2005
A report on one Illinois community's debate over a proposed
nuclear reactor for both economic and safety reasons.
ELIZABETH BRACKETT: The nuclear reactor in Clinton, Illinois,
provides nearly a million kilowatts of power to central
Illinois. It came online in 1982 when nuclear power was growing
rapidly. But that changed, and there hasn't been a new nuclear
reactor in this country in the last 26 years.
Now Clinton is one of three sites across the country applying
for an early site permit, the first step in building a new
reactor. Marilyn Kray is vice president of project development
for Exelon, the utility company that shares the ownership of the
Clinton facility with British Nuclear.
MARILYN KRAY: Our strategy at Exelon is based on taking action
now to preserve the option for the future because should there
be a need, the nuclear has so much lead time associated with it
that you need to take that action now to have that option
available to you in the future.
ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Most in the small town of Clinton say they
welcome the economic boom that another reactor would bring. The
town's director of economic development, Steve Vandiver, says a
new reactor would bring many benefits.
STEVE VANDIVER: Speaking economic development-wise, I would love
to see the reactor being built just for the fact of the workers
it brings to the town and the families it brings to town and
what it can do for our community.
ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Even though it would be eight to ten years
before a new reactor could be built, the first permit
application has sparked protest as well as praise.
SANDRA LINDBERG: Our concerns were not addressed substantively
in any way at all.
ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Sandra Lindberg, a theatre professor at
Illinois Weslyan University in nearby Bloomington, founded No
New Nukes to oppose the new reactor proposal.
SANDRA LINDBERG: There are multiple reasons, both health,
economic and design building a new reactor would be a big
problem for our community.
ELIZABETH BRACKETT: No New Nukes supporter Angelo Capparella
says his biggest concern about a second reactor is what to do
with the nuclear waste.
ANGELO CAPPARELLA: Everybody knows, in the industry and out,
that you're producing incredibly, highly radioactive waste
that's going to be toxic for as long as civilization has been in
existence. And we don't think that's a problem? It just baffles
me that we want to actually dig ourselves deeper into this hole,
producing waste that we really don't know what to do about.
ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Exelon's Kray says used nuclear fuel is one
of the industry's most challenging issues.
MARILYN KRAY: The theory, what was supposed to have happened
based on the Nuclear Waste Policy Act back in early 1980s, was
that the spent fuel that comes from the reactors was supposed to
then be taken by the Department of Energy, who was authorized to
design and build and operate a deep mine repository. Yucca
Mountain is the site that was chosen out in the Nevada desert.
That has not -- has not happened.
ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Critics and proponents of the Yucca Mountain
storage site say it will be years, if ever, before Yucca
Mountain is operational. Meanwhile, most used fuel rods are
stored in spent fuel pools like this one at Clinton. When pools
at nuclear plants across the country began filling up, the
nuclear industry began looking at transferring the spent fuel
rods to dry storage casks.
Exelon's Dresden nuclear plant in north central Illinois uses
dry storage casks for its nuclear waste. In a 2001 interview,
the casks safety was underscored by Exelon's Preston Swafford.
PRESTON SWAFFORD: I believe it's very safe. Yes, I do.
Currently, as you can see -- we're this close to it. We could
actually walk right up and touch the canister and have no
affect. There's very little radiation emitted off this because
of the design and the structure of significant amount of
concrete, morated material and the ability to really absorb and
shield any radioactive material that's inside that canister.
OSCAR SHIRANI: It's not that I am anti-nuclear because I am
pro-nuclear but pro-safe nuclear.
ELIZABETH BRACKETT: But Oscar Shirani, a former Exelon engineer
and auditor-turned-whistleblower, says an audit he did in 2000
found serious design problem with the dry storage casks.
In a speech sponsored by No New Nukes at Illinois Weslyan,
Shirani said he tried to stop production of dry casks designed
by the Holtec Company and manufactured by U.S. Tool & Die.
OSCAR SHIRANI: The cask could fail at any moment, not only in
terms of the material flaw, weld flaw, design flaw, and also the
neutron shielding material, which is outside. Remember, you
cannot wait for the material to break. You cannot wait until you
see millions of people running for their lives within hundreds
of miles. That is most dangerous to know what's unknown. We have
to know that these plants are operating safely.
ELIZABETH BRACKETT: The Dresden nuclear plant was under pressure
to start loading its Holtec casks when Shirani's audit came out
on Aug. 4, 2000. The audit resulted in nine findings: including
welding flaws and inadequately trained workers.
But a stop work order for the Holtec casks was never issued
because on the same day that Shirani's audit came out, Exelon
issued a report saying: "The subject findings were thoroughly
evaluated and all the issues were resolved satisfactorily during
the audit by the team not to have any impact on the Dresden
station Unit and Dry Storage Cask loading."
Shirani contends Exelon knowingly lied on its report since the
nine problem items couldn't have been resolved since his audit
had just been issued.
OSCAR SHIRANI: What they were doing in the next month or two,
they were loading the casks. And if you're loading the casks or
you bringing the plant to power, there should not be any
outstanding nonconformance reports. So because of the production
they go and lie and willfully violate the code.
ELIZABETH BRACKETT: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or NRC,
provides oversight for the nuclear industry. Some at the NRC
were also concerned with the design of the Holtec casks used at
Dresden.
In this report issued in 2001, the NRC inspector for the Midwest
region, Ross Landsman says, as Shirani did, that welds were
faulty. And even more alarming, records of who did the welding
and the process they used did not exist. Landsman refused to
sign off on this letter giving Dresden the go-ahead to load the
dry casks. And he tried to get the NRC to follow up on his and
Shirani's findings, with no success.
Landsman would not agree to an on-camera interview, but off
camera he said: "Every time I found something wrong with the
Holtec casks, my colleagues in Washington gave them an
exemption." And "I remain concerned about the safety of the
Holtec Dry Casks. The NRC should stop the production of the
casks, but they do not have the chutzpah to do it. This is the
kind of thinking that causes space shuttles to hit the ground."
But the NRC's spokesperson for the Midwest, Jan Strasma, says
the NRC has completed a thorough investigation of the
allegations about unsafe dry casks.
JAN STRASMA: We have done inspections at the cask vendor. We've
looked at their program. We've looked at what they did to fix
the program and considered that these issues are resolved.
ELIZABETH BRACKETT: And the primary vendor, Holtec
International, whose cask in this artist's rendering is shown in
transit, said in a statement: "The casks are absolutely safe.
They have met every regulatory requirement with great margins so
there is no chance of leakage either on a plant site or in
transport."
Shirani was fired ten months after his dry cask audit. He lost
the whistleblower discrimination case he filed with the
Department of Labor. Those who oppose a new reactor at Clinton
are pressing for congressional hearings to air Shirani's
charges. They are pleased that the permitting process for a new
reactor takes years -- years they say they will use to continue
to fight against a second reactor on the Clinton site.
Copyright ©2005 MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights
*****************************************************************
28 MSN Money: 9 ways to play the nuclear power surge
Posted 5/4/2005
With 50 new nuclear reactors expected to go online by 2020,
potential winners abound in this once-beleaguered field. Here
are some of the best plays.
By Michael Brush
Last week, when President Bush urged the nation to take action
to deal with rising energy costs, his comments confirmed what
many experts have been saying all along: It's time to go
nuclear.
And thanks to record gas prices and looming fossil-fuel
shortages -- not to mention an expected big spike in the demand
for electricity in the next decade -- a nuclear renaissance may
indeed be at hand.
"It is not a matter of if, but when," says Dan Keuter, the vice
president for nuclear business development at Entergy (, ,
msgs), a power company. "We are very bullish on the outlook for
nuclear power."
Because global electricity consumption will double in the next
25 years -- while reserves of fossil fuels begin to run dry --
experts believe at least 50 new nuclear power plants will be up
and running by 2020. Most of the plants will be built in China
and India, but ground could be broken on three or four plants in
the U.S. in as little as five years. It has been three decades
since a nuclear plant was built in this country.
One way for investors to play the growing use of nuclear power
-- and other alternatives to fossil fuel like wind and solar
power -- is to own shares of equipment producers like General
Electric (, , msgs). It isn’t exactly a pure play. But it stands
to benefit from double-digit revenue growth in these areas.
Near-term, the best way to play nuclear power is to hold shares
of electrical utilities that own the most nuclear plants. Power
companies like Exelon (, , msgs), Entergy, and Dominion
Resources (, , msgs) had the foresight to snap up dozens of
nuclear plants on the cheap in recent years. Now they have a
cost advantage as the price of natural gas, coal and oil shoot
higher, squeezing competitors that make most of their
electricity from fossil fuels.
Another approach -- for long-term investors -- is to buy shares
of uranium mining and enrichment companies like Cameco (, ,
msgs) and USEC (, , msgs).
Before we get to the details on these plays, here’s a look at
why we are on the verge of a nuclear renaissance.
Governments turn to the nuclear option
The International Energy Agency thinks global electricity
consumption will double by 2030. Given the limited supplies of
fossil fuels, many governments realize they’ll need to be
switching on nuclear power plants to meet that demand. France --
the extreme case -- already gets 80% of its power from nuclear
plants.
But the global average is more like 16%. To change that,
countries around the world are rethinking nuclear energy.
Finland, for example, is breaking ground on a new nuclear power
plant. China plans to fire up at least two new reactors a year
for the next 15 years.
In the U.S., President Bush clearly wants nuclear energy to play
a major role in weaning the country off fossil fuels. He
recently proposed ordering government agencies to compensate
power operators for regulatory delays.
A new generation of nuclear power plants will be safer
The next generation of nuclear reactors will be safer than the
ones we have now. The chief difference: The way they deliver
huge amounts of water to contain the core in case of a meltdown.
Older reactors use a series of pumps, valves and pipes that rely
on humans and electricity to work. Newer reactors will have big
tanks above the reactor ready to simply dump water on the core
in case there’s a problem. Despite fatal mishaps abroad,
reactors in the U.S. have never killed or injured civilians,
says Keuter of Entergy.
There’s another advantage that makes nuclear power a more secure
energy source, says Caroline Slama, author of a comprehensive
guide to investing in nuclear energy published by Société
Générale Group and SG Cowen late last year. Uranium is produced
in politically stable regions such as Canada and Australia. But
gas and oil come mainly from less stable regions.
Nuclear power may be cheaper
Comparing the costs of the different fuels used to power
turbines can be tricky -- because you have to make so many
assumptions. But nuclear energy will be cheaper if you make a
few reasonable educated guesses.
First, because they are expensive to build, nuclear plants would
have to operate near capacity levels to get the most bang for
the buck. Next, competing fuels like natural gas would have to
remain expensive. Finally, if governments tax carbon emissions
at power plants using fossil fuels -- a likely option -- nuclear
energy will be comparatively cheap, points out John Holdren, a
professor of environmental policy at Harvard University.
Other renewable sources not enough
With the help of government subsidies, power companies have
experimented with "renewable" energy sources like wind and solar
power for years. So far, they’re not convinced there’s a bright
future in the near term. Part of the problem with wind power is
that turbines only run about 35% of the time. So it is hard to
generate enough electricity to cover costs in a way that makes
the power cheap enough to compete, says Helen Howes, the vice
president of environment, health and safety at Exelon.
Ironically, given that many environmentalists oppose nuclear
energy, atomic power may be the best way to cut down on
so-called greenhouse-gas emissions, which may cause global
warming.
If global nuclear capacity tripled by 2050, that would cut the
expected increase in carbon emissions by a fourth, says a 2003
Massachusetts Institute of Technology study called "the Future
of Nuclear Power."
The timeline
So what will be built, where, and when? By far, the biggest
growth will come in China and India. Plans for boosting nuclear
capacity suggest we'll see 29 new plants in China over the next
15 years and 17 new ones in India, says Peter Wells, marketing
manager for GE Energy's nuclear business.
In the U.S., several power companies are hoping to finish site
selection for plants this summer. Applications will go in by
2008 and construction could start in 2010. The plants would be
finished four or five years later. Expect three or four new
plants in this first phase of construction.
One obstacle: Energy policy makers will have to overcome
political opposition to DOE plans to store nuclear waste inside
Yucca Mountain, in Nevada. "Before building a new plant and
creating additional waste, we need to know the long-term
strategy for the waste," says Marilyn Kray, the vice president
of nuclear development at Exelon.
Here’s a brief look at how to play the nuclear renaissance as an
investor.
Utilities: Nuclear pays now
Forward-thinking utilities like Entergy snapped up lots of
nuclear power plants in recent years. Now that natural gas, coal
and oil are so much more expensive, payday has arrived. "It
definitely gives us an advantage," says Entergy’s Keuter, who’s
in charge of buying nuclear plants for the utility. "Our cost of
electricity is substantially less than the competition."
According to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, nuclear
power cost 1.72 cents per kilowatt hour in 2003, while gas and
oil cost above 5.5 cents. Coal cost about 1.8 cents.
Roger Conrad, editor of the investment newsletter Utility
Forecaster, says our nation’s 103 nuclear power plants are
concentrated in the hands of six utility companies -- which has
made those companies good investments. "They are a huge profit
center for these companies," says Conrad.
Here are the three with the most nuclear reactors, along with
Conrad’s buy limit for the stocks: Entergy (under $70 per
share), Exelon (under $46) and Dominion Resources (under $72).
Three others with the most nuclear power plants are Southern
Company (, , msgs) (Conrad's buy limit: under $30),
Constellation Energy Group (, , msgs) (under $45) and FPL Group
(, , msgs) (under $40).
Uranium companies: Playing a price jump
Cameco, a Canadian mining company, has about 17% of the global
market for uranium. Uranium prices tripled to $24 per pound
recently when Russia reversed plans to release nuclear warheads
for commercial uranium extraction. Cameco will have to wait
three or for years to see the benefits, since it currently
operates under long-term contracts.
Figuring out how to invest in uranium enrichment is simple:
There’s only one publicly traded company that does it, USEC.
Barriers to entry in the business are high, since the technology
behind enriching uranium remains classified. The company is
developing a new enrichment technology that should reduce costs
considerably, says Steven Wingfield, who handles USEC investor
relations.
General Electric: More than just nuclear
GE is a blunt way to play the nuclear and renewable energy
themes because its units in those areas net around $4 billion in
sales, small compared to the company's $152 billion in annual
revenue.
GE is a leader in equipment and services used in nuclear power
generation. The company generates about $1.5 billion in revenue
a year here. It expects this market to grow about 5% a year over
in the medium term.
Thanks to generous tax credits for the development of
wind-powered electricity, that side of GE’s energy business is
going gangbusters. Wind-turbine sales should generate $2.25
billion this year. The company expects double-digit growth in
this market for several years. "We see very strong demand for
our products and services," says Mark Little, the vice president
of power generation for GE Energy. "The demand is so strong, if
we could make more turbines we would sell more."
[Morningstar, Inc.] Fund data provided by Morningstar, Inc. ©
2005. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
29 South Florida Sun-Sentinel: U.S. proposes 100 new nuclear power plants across U.S.
[Sun-Sentinel.com]
By Joseph Mann
Business Writer
Posted May 4 2005
The United States needs to add about 100 nuclear power plants
over the next two decades to meet burgeoning demand for electric
power and maintain the current generating mix, Nils J. Diaz,
chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission told
reporters Tuesday.
Nuclear power currently accounts for 20 percent of electric
energy generated in the country, while fossil fuels and
hydroelectric power produce most of the remainder.
Diaz, who also delivered the commencement address at Florida
International University in Miami, said that the federal
government has taken a series of steps to encourage private
companies to build and expand nuclear facilities, while at the
same time upgrading plant security norms. These include
simplifying the complex licensing procedures and encouraging
development of standardized plant designs.
The NRC chairman, who earlier visited Florida Power & Light
Co.'s Turkey Point nuclear facility, said that building or
expanding nuclear plants on existing sites would cut down on
overall planning and construction costs and expedite the
permitting process. By building a reactor at an existing site,
companies will not have to develop costly new infrastructure,
such as roads, connections to the electric grid and water
supply, Diaz said.
The commission expects five or six new applications for plants
over the next several years and will seek additional funding so
that it will have adequate technical staff to handle them.
Last year, FPL joined a consortium of power companies, called
NuStart Energy Development LLC, whose goals are to obtain a
construction and operating license for a nuclear plant from the
NRC and complete the design engineering for a particular reactor
technology. NuStart, and two other consortia, are laying the
groundwork for building plants in the future, but none of the
companies involved has made any commitment to erect a new plant.
Obtaining a construction and operating license for a nuclear
plant includes preparing extensive engineering and design
studies. It is a complicated process that costs several million
dollars and can take years to complete.
FPL, with nuclear plants at St. Lucie and Turkey Point, has
indicated that it will not be the first to build a new nuclear
facility.
Copyright 2005, Sun-Sentinel Co. & South Florida Interactive,
Inc.
*****************************************************************
30 SA: Business Day: Out-of-touch green lobby at risk of losing face on nuclear powerÂ
Thursday, 05 May 2005
Posted to the web on: 04 May 2005
Robyn Chalmers
EARTHLIFE Africa certainly seems to have annoyed the president.
The environmental groups claims of dangerous radiation levels
at the Pelindaba nuclear site near Pretoria were dismissed by
President Thabo Mbeki last week as being without foundation.
In fact, it seems that Earthlife Africa may be on to something,
with the National Nuclear Regulator and the Nuclear Energy
Corporation of SA (Necsa) measuring similar levels to those
found by Earthlife Africas geologists. There remains a dispute
about whether these levels are sufficiently high to be
dangerous, but there is enough anecdotal evidence of
radiation-linked diseases among former Pelindaba employees for
Necsa to launch an investigation.
Its a serious issue, made more so by the fact that much is at
stake for government and, by default, for environmentalists.
The state-owned electricity utility, Eskom, is on the verge of
building much-needed power stations in order to meet burgeoning
demand for electricity. Electricity is a vital ingredient in the
mix to grow SAs economy above the magic 6% figure, and Eskom is
running out of the surplus power it acquired when it went on a
power- station building spree in the 1980s.
In light of this, the minerals and energy department has already
issued tenders for two gas-fired power stations to be
constructed by the private sector. Gas-fired power stations are
cleaner-burning than coal, but the new units will deliver only a
small proportion of the 5000-odd megawatts that we need in the
coming years.
So heres the problem. SA needs more electricity, and it needs
it quickly. Moreover, SA has the cheapest electricity in the
world (thanks mainly to the power-station building spree). We
can thank our cheap power for a fair portion of our
international competitiveness and attractiveness as a foreign
investment destination. Hence, we cannot introduce massive price
shocks into the system, which would certainly happen if
government decided to go environmentally friendly overnight and
focused on solar, wind and other forms of renewable energy.
So the chances are good that Eskoms next set of power stations
will be predominantly coal-fired, and there will also probably
be a mix of nuclear power stations the pebble bed modular
reactors. There will be some renewable energy sources, in line
with governments decision to adopt national targets to reduce
energy-related emissions harmful to the environment. But they
are likely to continue to make up a small percentage of the new
energy mix.
The question is how environmentalists plan to tackle this
scenario. Clearly, they need to start changing their scare
tactics. The Economist ran a fascinating article last week in
which a group of greens themselves argued that environmentalists
globally were politically adrift and dreadfully out of touch .
The central tenet of the argument was that scaremongering by
greens was simply not cutting it any more. The world has moved
on, the United Nations (UNs) Kyoto protocol is in place, and
unless environmental groups grasp this and come up with some
more pragmatic solutions, they will lose the battle for ideas.
Quite frankly, the same can be said of our own environmental
lobby groups. It is increasingly clear that government is going
to opt for coal-fired power stations and nuclear power. This is
largely being justified on the basis of economic growth and job
creation. Indeed, countries around the world are investing more
in nuclear power since the Kyoto protocol came into effect, with
the UNs International Atomic Energy Agency estimating earlier
this year that up to 130 new 1000MW nuke plants are in the
offing. Nuclear power is becoming popular precisely because it
has few greenhouse gas emissions, allowing countries to meet
their Kyoto obligations to cut emissions.
Nuclear continues to be opposed by the green movement, due
mainly to safety concerns and issues around discarding
radioactive waste. And they are real concerns, evidenced by the
saga unfolding at Pelindaba.
But what are the greens posing as alternatives to coal and
nuclear? It tends to be renewable energy which, hopefully, will
one day provide power for the entire world. But not now, and
certainly not on any large scale in SA. Its simply too
expensive, unreliable and, for the moment, impractical.
The challenge for the green movement must be to come up with
viable, pragmatic alternatives. Lobbying government to ensure
that the new coal-based power stations use cleaner-burning coal
would be a start. Many coal companies, and Eskom, are already
investing in such technology. All of them should be forced to do
so if they wish to participate in the new power station drive.
On nuclear power, the focus has to be on getting government to
spend money on researching ways to deal effectively with
radioactive waste so we do not leave it as a horrific legacy for
our children.
Environmentalists should be among the most powerful lobbyists in
this country. They arent. It is time for a tactical rethink.
Chalmers is deputy editor.
BDFM Publishers (Pty) Ltd disclaims all liability for
*****************************************************************
31 AFP: France closing in on deal to host ITER nuclear reactor
Wednesday May 4, 10:58 PM
PARIS (AFP) - France appears to be heading towards a deal to
build a ground-breaking nuclear reactor, with President Jacques
Chirac all but declaring victory and a report in Tokyo that
arch-rival Japan had given up on the project.
"France is on the verge of getting ITER sited at Cadarache" in
the south of the country, Chirac told French television, using
the acronym for the reactor. "We will have it at Cadarache!"
In Tokyo, the top-selling daily Yomiuri Shimbun reported
Wednesday that the Japanese government had begun negotiations
about "giving up its bid" to build the reactor in Rokkasho-mura,
a northern village near the Pacific Ocean.
Citing government sources, it said the decision followed recent
unofficial talks with the European Union, which has been
supporting France's bid.
As a result, the Yomiuri said, "it is now highly likely the
reactor will be built in Cadarache, France."
Japan's vice science minister Akio Yuuki dismissed the report,
saying that "we are not considering giving up our bid (for ITER)
at all."
There is no change in our intention," he was quoted as telling
reporters.
In Brussels, the European Commission said it too was unaware of
any change and talks were continuing to "clarify the roles" of
the various parties.
"We have received no official indication" that Japan may be
ready to abandon its bid, a commission spokeswoman said.
The issue was likely to come up at talks Wednesday in Paris
between French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier and Japanese
counterpart Nobutaka Machimura.
Nevertheless, a deal does appears in the offing, according to
what leaders and officials have been saying in recent days.
Interviewed late Tuesday, Chirac said that after France secured
EU support for the project, "we then imposed ourselves with
Russia, China, everyone."
"We are finishing negotiations with Japan," Chirac added.
"Do you imagine that happens all by itself? It happens because
France has a voice that is listened to, certainly respected,
even if sometimes it grates a little."
The ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor)
project would emulate the sun's nuclear fusion to generate what
its backers say could be an inexhaustible energy source of the
future.
The budget is projected at some 10 billion euros (13 billion
dollars) over the next 30 years, including 4.7 billion euros to
build the reactor alone, and the plant is not expected to be
operational before 2050.
Of the six parties which have been involved in long-running
talks over the project, the United States and South Korea have
supported Japan's bid to site ITER in Rokkasho-mura, while the
EU, China and Russia backed France.
However, the European Union presidency Monday pointed to a new
willingness by Japan to compromise, saying Tokyo was now ready
to discuss the possibility of siting the reactor in Europe.
Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi agreed after talks
Monday with EU leaders in Luxembourg that they would aim for
"earliest possible agreement."
A Japanese government source told the Yomiuri that talks between
Tokyo and EU officials were in a "final phase" and should
conclude later this month. The agreement would then be taken to
the six-party talks as early as next month.
Quite apart from the politics, the science behind the ITER
project presents an immense technological challenge.
Under the process, scientists would fuse atomic nuclei together
to release energy in the same way the sun does, but achieving
that kind of sustained and stable reaction would require a gas
field heated to 100 million degrees inside an intense magnetic
field.
But the advantages are huge -- one of the hydrogen isotopes
needed to fuel the process is found in water while the other can
be man-made, and a plentiful supply would fill the void as the
world moves away from oil, coal and natural gas.
Copyright © 2005 AFP. All rights reserved. All information
*****************************************************************
32 [du-list] Non-Proliferation and the Nuclear Shadow - from
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 19:23:51 -0700
Institute for Public Accuracy
915 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045
(202) 347-0020 * http://www.accuracy.org * ipa@accuracy.org
___________________________________________________
Wednesday, May 4, 2005
Non-Proliferation and the Nuclear Shadow
Interviews Available
With the review conference on the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) now
underway at the United Nations, commentators include independent policy
analysts and Americans who have direct experience with nuclear weapons
tests. The following are available for interviews:
JOHN BURROUGHS, (917) 439-4585, (212) 818-1861, johnburroughs@lcnp.org,
http://www.lcnp.org
Burroughs, executive director of the New York-based Lawyers' Committee on
Nuclear Policy, is monitoring the Non-Proliferation Treaty conference in
New York. Burroughs presented the paper "Building a Nuclear Weapons-Free
Future" at the January meeting on the NPT at the Carter Center. He said
today: "As the four-week NPT Review Conference opened this week, the U.S.
is showing no flexibility about arms control steps like negotiation of a
verifiable treaty banning production of fissile materials (plutonium and
highly enriched uranium) for nuclear weapons. That is a treaty under which
international inspectors would monitor U.S. facilities, a prospect not
attractive to the Bush administration. In turn, non-nuclear countries are
resisting non-proliferation measures like IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei's
proposal for multilateral controls on the spread of technology to produce
fissile materials for use in nuclear reactors but also potentially in
nuclear weapons."
DENNIS P. NELSON, (301) 530-9212, dpnmdk@starpower.net,
innercircle@starpower.net
Nelson is the director of Support & Education for Radiation Victims. He
said today: "I know first hand what it means to grow up downwind from atom
bombs, and I know the history of government deception and its failure to
acknowledge the great harm that was done. ... Renewed nuclear testing would
be an insult to all those who have suffered so much from the effects of the
atom bomb. Those who have lost their lives have yet to be acknowledged and
honored for their ultimate sacrifice in the name of 'national security.'"
In November 2002, the National Geographic magazine recounted Nelson's
history as a downwinder: "Born and raised in St. George, Utah, Nelson was
seven when atomic bombs with names like 'Charlie' and 'Baker' began
exploding less than 120 miles from his home. But with safe assurances from
the Atomic Energy Commission, his family thought they were unaffected. They
continued to eat vegetables from a garden irrigated with water polluted
from fallout dust and drink fresh milk from the farmer up the street. They
were unaware that scientists would eventually show that radioactive iodine
131 often entered the food chain through milk from cows that ate
contaminated grass or feed, and increased the risk of thyroid cancer. The
Nelsons' health eventually began to unravel. In a family of seven, seven
different kinds of cancers were diagnosed, including colon cancer, which
claimed his sister Margaret."
JOSEPH GERSON, (617) 661-6130, (617) 216-0576, jgerson@afsc.org,
http://www.afsc.org/pwork/0503/050312.htm
Director of the American Friends Service Committee's Peace and Economic
Security Program and the author of the book "With Hiroshima Eyes: Atomic
War, Nuclear Extortion and Moral Imagination," Gerson said today: "Few in
the U.S. are aware of the world's growing anger over U.S. double standards
and Washington's hypocrisy. [They] are the primary forces driving nuclear
weapons proliferation and threatening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
Review Conference. ... At the last NPT Review Conference in 2000, under
pressure from the non-nuclear nations, the nuclear powers agreed to take 13
'practical steps' toward implementing Article VI: ratifying the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, strengthening the Anti-Ballistic Missile
treaty, reducing their nuclear arsenals, halting production of
weapons-grade nuclear materials, and more. The U.S. has since refused to
ratify the CTBT, abrogated the ABM [treaty], and continues to develop new
nuclear weapons. ... The current U.S. administration's
counter-proliferation policy is an extension of its first-strike
unilateralism."
ALICE SLATER, [via Chris Cooper (212) 726-9161], aslater@gracelinks.org,
ccooper@abolitionnow.org, http://www.gracelinks.org/nuke/
Director of the Global Resource Action Center for the Environment and a
coordinator of the AbolitionNow! campaign, Slater said: "The bargain
enshrined in the Non-Proliferation Treaty was that any non-nuclear state
may develop peaceful nuclear power so long as they foreswear developing
nuclear weapons. In exchange, the nuclear signatories promised to make
'good faith' efforts to get rid of their nuclear weapons. That was over 30
years ago, and today the U.S. maintains enough nuclear weapons on
hair-trigger alert to destroy the world hundreds of times over and is now
researching new, more usable tactical nuclear weapons and adopting a
military posture that allows the use of nuclear weapons in preemptive
attacks. Technically, Iran is not yet in violation of any terms of the
Treaty while the U.S. continues to violate it on a daily basis. If the U.S.
demonstrated a commitment to genuine disarmament, it would surely then have
the moral authority to close the loopholes in the Treaty that allow nuclear
power programs to be used covertly to develop nuclear weapons."
For more information, contact the Institute for Public Accuracy at (202)
347-0020; or David Zupan at (541) 484-9167
For all list information and functions, including changing
your subscription mode and options, visit the Web page:
http://lists.accuracy.org/lists/info/mediagen
--
----------
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.5 - Release Date: 5/4/05
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Has someone you know been affected by illness or disease?
Network for Good is THE place to support health awareness efforts!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/RzSHvD/UOnJAA/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/
*****************************************************************
33 [NYTr] US Plans for Pre-emptive Nuke Strikes over "WMDs?"
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 15:44:03 -0500 (CDT)
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
sent by mart
Kyodo News via Japan Times - May 2, 2005
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20050502a3.htm
U.S. may allow nuke strikes over WMD.
Proposal would reverse 10-year policy
WASHINGTON (Kyodo) The U.S. military is considering allowing regional
combatant commanders to request presidential approval for pre-emptive
nuclear strikes against possible attacks with weapons of mass destruction on
the United States or its allies, according to a draft nuclear operations
paper.
The March 15 paper, drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is titled
"Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations," providing "guidelines for the joint
employment of forces in nuclear operations... for the employment of U.S.
nuclear forces, command and control relationships, and weapons effect
considerations."
"There are numerous nonstate organizations (terrorist, criminal) and about
30 nations with WMD programs, including many regional states," the paper
says in recommending that commanders in the Pacific and other theaters be
given an option of pre-emptive strikes against "rogue" states and terrorists
and "request presidential approval for use of nuclear weapons" under set
conditions.
The paper identifies nuclear, biological and chemical weapons as requiring
pre-emptive strikes to prevent their use.
Allowing pre-emptive nuclear strikes against possible biological and
chemical attacks would effectively contradict a "negative security
assurance" policy declared 10 years ago by the Clinton administration during
an international conference to review the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Creating a treaty committing nuclear powers not to use nuclear weapons
against countries without nuclear weapons remains one of the most
contentious issues for the 35-year-old NPT regime.
A Pentagon official said the paper "is still a draft which has to be
finalized" but indicated that it is aimed at guiding "cross-spectrum"
combatant commanders how to jointly carry out operations based on the
Nuclear Posture Review report adopted three years ago by the Bush
administration.
Citing North Korea, Iran and some other countries as threats, the report
sets out contingencies for which U.S. nuclear strikes must be prepared.
It calls for developing earth-penetrating nuclear bombs to destroy hidden
underground military facilities, including those for storing WMD and
ballistic missiles.
"The nature (of the paper) is to explain not details but cross spectrum for
how to conduct operations," the official said, noting that it "means for all
services -- army, navy, air force and marine."
In 1991 after the end of the Cold War, the United States removed its
ground-based nuclear weapons in Asia and Europe as well as strategic nuclear
warheads on warships and submarines.
But the paper says the U.S. has the capability of reviving sea-based nuclear
arms.
*
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
. Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
34 Interfax: Russia cut nuclear arms by 80% since 1991 - official
Updated: May 4 2005 8:21PM (MSK)
May 4 2005 6:12PM
MOSCOW. May 4 (Interfax) - Since 1991, Russia has reduced its
stockpile of nuclear arms by over four-fifths, Deputy Foreign
Minister Sergei Kislyak told the Seventh Review Conference on
the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in New York on Wednesday.
"Russia is true to its commitments following from the treaty,
including nuclear disarmament measures," he said in a speech
posted on the ministry's website.
"Compared to 1991, the total stocks of nuclear arms have been
reduced by over four-fifths," he said.
© 1991-2005 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.
*****************************************************************
35 Bellona: UK and Norway to sponsor dismantling of two more nuclear subs
A contract on dismantling a Victor-III multipurpose nuclear
submarine at the Nerpa shipyard in Snezhnogorsk, Murmansk
region, has been signed in London on April 28.
2005-05-04 18:59
. Great Britain allocated 4.3 million euro for the project,
which will be carried out in the frames of the G-8 program on
global partnership, signed in 2002. UK pledged total about $750m
for this program. Besides, a similar contract with Norway is
expected to be signed on May 11-12 in Murmansk. The preliminary
agreement stipulates 4.7 million euro, Interfax reported.
Total 26 second-generation submarines of 671RTM project
(Victor-III) were built from 1964 to 1974. 16 of them were based
in the Northern Fleet. Today eight Victor-III submarines are
taken our of service.
At the moment service ship Imandra assigned to the Murmansk
Shipping Company arrived at the Nerpa shipyard to unload spent
nuclear fuel from the nuclear submarine project 671RTM
(Victor-III), factory no.297. Norway finances its dismantlement.
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
*****************************************************************
36 RIA Novosti: OVER FIVE YEARS RUSSIA CUTS ITS NUCLEAR STRENGTH BY 1,740 WARHEADS
NEW YORK, May 4, (RIA Novosti's Andrei Loshchilin) - Between
January 1, 2000 and January 1, 2005 Russia cut down its nuclear
strategic forces by 357 delivery vehicles and 1,740 warheads,
said Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak on Tuesday.
He was speaking at the 7th Nuclear Non-Proliferation Review
Conference. He emphasized that in the five years since the
previous such conference Russia had fulfilled its obligations
under START (strategic arms reduction treaty) agreements well
ahead of schedule.
"By this moment in time Russia has reduced its non-strategic
nuclear arsenals by four times," noted Kislyak. "On balance,
compared with 1991, the overall inventories of nuclear arms have
been cut back by more than five times."
Another important step towards nuclear disarmament, according to
the deputy minister, is the Moscow Treaty concluded in 2002,
under which Russia and the U.S. pledged within 10 years to
reduce their nuclear arsenals by two-thirds - down to a ceiling
of 1,700-2,200 warheads on each side.
"Our contribution to irreversible nuclear disarmament also
includes a program to process 500 tons of highly enriched
uranium extracted from Russian nuclear armaments," Kislyak
added. He estimates that by the fall of this year 250 tons of
uranium will have been processed, which is equivalent to
scrapping several thousand warheads.
Russia, which suggested the non-proliferation treaty, is
committed to strengthening its universal character, the deputy
foreign minister emphasized.
RIA NOVOSTI
*****************************************************************
37 UN Atomic Agency To Test Emergency Preparedness With Simulated Accident In Romania
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 17:00:58 -0400
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_ORG,
SPF_HELO_PASS,SP_HAM_SUPER,SUBJ_ALL_CAPS,WHITE_PHRASE autolearn=ham
version=3.0.3
X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com
UN ATOMIC AGENCY TO TEST EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS WITH SIMULATED ACCIDENT
IN ROMANIA
New York, May 4 2005 5:00PM
Marshalling 60 Governments and seven international agencies, the
United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will test
plans for handling a radiological emergency by simulating an accident
at eastern Romania's Cernavoda nuclear power plant next week,
the agency said today.
The test next Wednesday and Thursday will put the IAEA's Incident
and Emergency Centre (IEC) through its paces in transmitting emergency
notification, alerting Member States and international bodies
about the implications and responding to requests for assistance.
"This exercise is focused primarily on testing communication networks
and assessing the technical implications," <"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/index.html">IAEA
said.
The UN World Health Organization (<"http://www.who.int/mediacentre/en/">WHO)
will activate its Strategic Health Operations Centre
(SHOC) to receive notification and alert the Radiation and Environmental
Health Unit (RAD). RAD will activate the Radiation Emergency
Medical Preparedness and Assistance Network (REMPAN) and inform
regional offices, the IAEA said.
Other agencies taking part include the UN World Meteorological Organization
(<"http://www.wmo.ch/index-en.html">WMO) and the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO) Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response
Coordination Centre (EADRCC).
2005-05-04 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
*****************************************************************
38 [du-list] DU Munitions Action Plan, DOT-E 9649, Update
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 14:22:36 -0700
Depleted Uranium Munitions Action Plan
Updated May 4, 2005 by Glen Milner
Exemption DOT-E 9649, which allows the secret shipment of depleted
uranium munitions, has not been renewed at this time. Statements may
still be made to the Department of Transportation.
Statements regarding DOT-E 9649 may be sent to:
Mr. Delmer Billings DHM-31
Director, Office of Hazardous Materials
Exemptions and Approvals
Department of Transportation
400 7th St. SW
Washington, D.C. 20590
Fax: (202) 366-3308
E-mail: delmer.billings@rspa.dot.gov
Statements regarding DOT-E 9649, may be viewed on the Department of
Transportation Docket Management System website at http://dms.dot.gov.
To access DOT-E 9649 statements, go to the bottom left side of the
webpage, then link to Simple Search and enter 18576 for the Docket
Number. This website is intended for public viewing.
There are currently 268 comments and documents concerning the shipment of
depleted uranium munitions on the DOT Docket Management System website.
DOT-E 9649, scheduled to be renewed on June 30, 2004, has been extended
to allow the Department of Defense more time to supply requested
information. Recently, Mr. Billings stated the DOT would like to make a
decision on the exemption in the next 30 days. If DOT-E 9649 is renewed
again, the exemption would be extended to June 30, 2006.
An e-mail message dated May 13, 2004 from Mr. Joseph Dugan of the
Department of Defense, sent to numerous military officials regarding
DOT-E 9649, shows how important the exemption is to the U.S. military.
The message stated, “We have a serious problem with the renewal of DOT-E
9649, it will expire on 30 June 2004. There are several environmental
groups opposing the renewal of this exemption: they have generated a
grass roots opposition plan to engage DOT with the intent to place DOT in
a position where they must take an adverse action with respect to the
granting of renewal of the exemption. This group is attempting to force
Public Hearings be conducted by DOT, this is unusual and not normally
part of the renewal process… If we do not present a solid and
informative response this exemption may very well be cancelled and if
this is the case any material you may have stored in the various known
locations will be very difficult to transport at some time in the
future.”
At this time it would be helpful to contact the DOT. Please--
1. Ask for public hearings on this issue.
2. Ask elected officials to voice opposition to the secret shipment of
radioactive munitions, allowed by DOT-E 9649.
3. Ask the DOT why the likely accident scenario involving fire and the
burning of depleted uranium has not been addressed by the DOT. The
Department of Defense has well documented the hazards of burning depleted
uranium but has chosen not to submit this information. The DOT needs to
address known hazards involving a fire and radioactive munitions.
The Depleted Uranium Munitions Action Plan was initiated by Ground Zero
Center for Nonviolent Action in Washington, Traprock Peace Center in
Massachusetts, Military Toxics Project in Maine, and Nukewatch in
Wisconsin, in November 2003. Organizations such as the Twin Cities Phil
Berrigan DU Group, the Port Townsend Depleted Uranium Study Team, and the
"Depleted” Uranium Weapons Network of the Hudson Mohawk Region, have
joined in.
The complete action plan is posted at
http://www.traprockpeace.org/du_mun_action_plan.pdf or please e-mail
gkaajm@juno.com for a copy.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Has someone you know been affected by illness or disease?
Network for Good is THE place to support health awareness efforts!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/RzSHvD/UOnJAA/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/
*****************************************************************
39 [DU-WATCH] Veterans Administration Time Limit For Claims
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 23:45:58 -0500 (CDT)
Veterans Administration Time Limit For Claims
View Current Signatures - Sign the Petition
To: PRESIDENT BUSH, UNITED STATES CONGRESS AND US SUPREME PRESIDENT
BUSH, UNITED STATES CONGRESS AND US SUPREME COURT, JUSTICE WM.
REHNQUIST
We the UNDERSIGNED want a statute passed, and firmly enforced,
requiring that it take no longer then 12 months [1year] to fully
process veterans claims for benefits.
We want to make it a felony with a penalty of seven years [maximum]
or two years [minimum] in prison for any individual to tamper with,
delay, or otherwise hinder the processing of a VA Claim for Benefits.
In such a case, the veteran will be granted his claim in full.
We want the United States Government to stop its policy of keeping
the budget of the Bureau of Veterans Affairs low.
DISABLED VETERAN SHALL HAVE [preference] and THE OPTION FOR MEDICAL
TREATMENT OUTSIDE THE VA, OR BOTH, PER THERE PERCENTAGE OF DISABILITY,
WITHOUT MEDICAL TIME OR ADMINISTRATION DELAYS.
DISABLED VETERAN WILL HAVE THE RIGHT OF RECOVERY FOR ALL MEDICAL
OR LEGAL COSTS AND/OR DAMAGES if his rights are violated.
Sincerely, The Undersigned
[input] View Current Signatures
---------------------------------
The Veterans Administration Time Limit For Claims Petition to
PRESIDENT BUSH, UNITED STATES CONGRESS AND US SUPREME was created
by vets for justice and written by Arnold John Romanus Sr.. This
petition is hosted here at www.PetitionOnline.com as a public
service. There is no express or implied endorsement of this petition
by Artifice, Inc. or our sponsors. The petition scripts are created
by Mike Wheeler at Artifice, Inc. For Technical Support please use
our simple Petition Help form.
Send this to a friend Send Petition to a Friend - Start a Petition
- Contributions - Privacy - Advertising - Comments
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
What would our lives be like without music, dance, and theater?
Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for Good!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/CybhMB/SOnJAA/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/
*****************************************************************
40 [DU-WATCH] Desert Shield / Desert Storm Vets Survey
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 23:46:14 -0500 (CDT)
Operation Desert Shield / Desert Storm,
Survey Results.
October 1, 1995.
(915) 368-4667
www.odssa.com
Percentages based on total number of calls received and Survey's
completed at group meetings during 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995.
10,051 calls or Surveys were received. 4,611 calls or Surveys were
verified sickness calls, which reflects some 45.87% of the total
calls received. Calls from Active Duty personnel were not verifiable
due to military policies. Verification was performed by calling
medical entities providing the treatment and requesting verification
that subject was being treated by that entity or examination of
hand-carried medical records at group meetings.
SECTION 1.
Gas Alarms,Your Unit Went Into Mopp Status.......... 84 %.
Dead Animals in Operations Area..................... 65 %.
Came under Iraqi Artillery Fire..................... 67 %.
Entered Captured Enemy Vehicles..................... 82 %.
Operations Area Under Scud Attack................... 78 %.
Entered Captured Enemy Bunkers...................... 64 %.
Entered Area or Building With Radiation Warning..... 09 %.
Entered Captured Enemy Ammunition Dump.............. 62 %.
Entered or Worked in Landfill / Garbage Dump....... 76 %.
Within Clear / Visual Area Of Oil Fires............. 90 %.
Breathing or Enveloped In Oil Fire Smoke............ 96 %.
Worked In, Lived In Or Numerous Travel Through Oil.. 72 %.
Oily Taste To Food.................................. 66 %.
Oily Taste To Drinking Water........................ 65 %.
Washed Body In Water With Oily Sheen................ 68 %.
Ate Local Economy Food.............................. 87 %.
Drank Local Water................................... 69 %.
Bathed In Local Water............................... 78 %.
SECTION II.
Received Investigational Drugs and Vaccines......... 94 %.
Symptoms:
Chronic Fatigue..................................... 90 %.
Headaches........................................... 84 %.
Eyes Sensitive To Bright Light...................... 81 %.
Blurred Vision, Lose Focus For No Apparent Reason....80 %.
Rashes, Spots To Water Blister's.................... 87 %.
Bleeding Gums....................................... 61 %.
Aching Joints....................................... 85 %.
Rectal Bleeding..................................... 30 %.
Constant Diarrhea................................... 79 %.
Hair Loss........................................... 58 %.
Blood In The Urine.................................. 18 %.
Blood In The Stool.................................. 47 %.
Loose Teeth......................................... 43 %.
Sleep Problems...................................... 95 %.
Skin Lumps.......................................... 65 %.
Abdominal Pains..................................... 84 %.
Dark, Or Off Colored Sputum......................... 51 %.
Skin Changes, Color Or Texture...................... 68 %.
Short Term Memory Loss.............................. 91 %.
Mood Swings, Out Of Normal Range.................... 93 %.
Married............................................. 65 %.
Spouse Problems..................................... 51 %.
Children Have Uncommon Problems..................... 22 %.
Operation Desert Shield / Desert Storm
Hafar al Batin / KKMC Region Survey.
October 1, 1995.
(915) 368-4667
www,odssa.com
Percentages based on total number of calls received and survey's
completed at group meetings during 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995.
10,051 surveys were completed through telephonic or physical
application, of which 4,611 were verified sickness survey's. Of the
4,611 verified surveys, 2,001 were identified as having served in
the Hafar al Batin / KKMC region of the operational theater which
reflects 43.39 % of the verified surveys. The following percentages
are based on the 43.39 % completed surveys:
SECTION I.
Gas Alarms, Your Unit Went Into Mopp Status......... 93.54%.
Dead Animals in Operational Area.................... 54.83%.
Came Under Iraqi Artillery Fire..................... 70.96%.
Entered Captured Enemy Vehicles..................... 77.41%.
Operations Area Under Scud Attack................... 80.64%.
Entered Captured Enemy Bunkers...................... 80.64%.
Entered Area or Building With Radiation Warning..... 3.22%.
Entered Captured Enemy Ammunition Dump.............. 41.93%.
Entered or Worked in Landfill / Garbage Dump........ 67.74%.
Within Clear / Visual Area of Oil Fires............. 90.32%.
Breathing or Enveloped in Oil Field Fire Smoke...... 96.77%.
Worked In / Lived In / Numerous Travel Through Oil.. 67.74%.
Oily Taste To Food.................................. 54.83%.
Oily Taste To Drinking Water........................ 58.06%.
Washed Body in Water With Oily Sheen................ 77.41%.
Ate Local Economy Food.............................. 77.41%.
Drank Local Water................................... 61.29%.
Bathed in Local Water............................... 70.96%.
SECTION II.
Received Investigational Drugs and/or Vaccines...... 96.77%.
SYMPTOMS:
Chronic Fatigue..................................... 90.32%.
Headaches........................................... 80.64%.
Eyes Sensative To Bright Light...................... 80.64%.
Blurred Vision,Lose Focus for no Apparent Reason.... 77.41%.
Rashes - Spots to Water Blister's................... 74.19%.
Bleeding Gums....................................... 61.29%.
Aching Joints....................................... 83.87%.
Rectal Bleeding..................................... 29.03%.
Constant Diarrhea................................... 90.32%.
Hair Loss........................................... 64.51%.
Blood In Urine...................................... 16.12%.
Blood In Stool...................................... 58.06%.
Loose Teeth......................................... 45.16%.
Sleep Problems...................................... 87.09%.
Skin Lumps.......................................... 58.06%.
Abdominal Pains..................................... 90.32%.
Dark or Off-Colored Sputum.......................... 61.29%.
Skin Changes, Color or Texture...................... 70.96%.
Short Term Memory Loss.............................. 93.54%.
Mood Swings, Out Of Normal Range.................... 90.32%.
Married............................................. 77.41%.
Spouse Problems..................................... 48.38%.
Children Have Uncommon Problems..................... 18.29%.
************************************************************
Rebroadcast by the UNIFIED VETERANS COALITION
UNIFIED VETERANS COALITION
Special Links For : All Allied Forces
Agent Orange, Gulf War Illness
Veterans Health Issues, Homeland Security
Political Action, Womens Vet Issues & Bible Studies
http://xsorbit27.com/users5/unifiedveteranscoalition/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Dying to be thin?
Anorexia. Narrated by Julianne Moore .
http://us.click.yahoo.com/7visLB/gsnJAA/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/
*****************************************************************
41 Journal News: Atomic bomb survivors speak
By DANA NAIM
SPECIAL TO THE JOURNAL NEWS
Japan trip
The Fellowship of Reconciliation will send a delegation to Japan
in August for the commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the
Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. For more information, go to
http:// forusa.org
(Original publication: May 4, 2005)
UPPER NYACK — Almost 60 years after nuclear bombs shook the
Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, survivors relived the
experience last night and shared their stories at the Fellowship
of Reconciliation.
Three atomic bomb survivors, or "hibakusha," came from Japan
this week to recount the attack that hastened the end of World
War II.
"The witness they offer is a real testament to human courage and
the capacity for forgiveness," said Ibrahim Ramey, disarmament
coordinator for FOR. "They are the only community to live
through a nuclear attack. It reminds us of the danger nuclear
weapons present to our world."
The program began with a prayer, a chance for the audience to
share thoughts, poems or excerpts from books, and a presentation
of live footage of the bombing in Japan on Aug. 6, 1945. A
second video urged the audience to join the international
Mayors' Campaign in an effort to abolish nuclear weapons
worldwide.
The survivors talked about the bombing of Hiroshima, the
destruction of their schools and homes, and how they watched
family and neighbors die in front of their eyes.
"Gusts of wind blew pieces of window glass, and one of them
became stuck in the heart of a 19-year-old girl," said Yuko
Minamisono, who lived just over 2 kilometers from the site of
the bombing. "She was blown about 20 meters, fell into the
garden and died instantly."
Minamisono, who spoke in Japanese, said she was 7 at the time,
but witnessed her school burn down and her family injured.
"Even now, there are pieces of glass inside my body, which have
been festering and hurting me for a long time," she said.
In memory of the 140,000 people who died in Hiroshima,
Minamisono said she is dedicated to fight for the abolition of
nuclear weapons.
Yasuo Endo, whose story was also translated from Japanese,
agreed that it's his responsibility to oppose weapons of mass
destruction.
Although Endo, a 15-year-old at the time, wasn't injured in the
bombing, he said the aftermath has continued to affect his life
and the lives of his children.
"I have a son and daughter myself and I was shocked when my
daughter asked me 18 years ago if she should give birth to a
child," Endo said, referring to her fear of the impact of
radiation.
Yoshio Sato, the third survivor who shared his story, said he
was 1 kilometer from ground zero. He and his family were trapped
under their wooden home, but Sato eventually got out and rescued
them.
Sato said the bomb caused blasts of hot wind that forced him and
his family to jump into the reservoir repeatedly to cool off. As
a result of the radiation, Sato said, he lost clumps of hair
every day and later discovered he had stomach cancer.
The rest of his family died in the aftermath; his mother died
less than a month after the bombing.
Steve White, a Spring Valley resident who attended the event,
said he was moved by the stories he heard.
"This is a once-in-my-lifetime opportunity to meet these
survivors, who experienced something so long ago and live so far
away," he said after the event. "What kept going through my mind
was, 'To know war is to hate war.' It makes you realize war is
something that happened to real people, to real families. I wish
more people around the world could hear these stories."
Copyright 2005 The Journal News, . Inc. newspaper serving
Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York.
*****************************************************************
42 BoiseWeekly: Report: We're All Downwinders, But Don't Expect a Check
MAY 4, 2005
BY NICHOLAS COLLIAS
After months of heated anticipation, the National Academy of
Sciences released a report on April 28 making recommendations to
Congress regarding governmental compensation for citizens who
were harmed by radioactive fallout from nuclear testing at the
Nevada Test Site.
Importantly, the report acknowledged that residents of all
counties in the continental United States, Hawaii, and Alaska
received fallout from the Cold War-era explosions, and that many
highly affected areas were not included in 1990's Radiation
Exposure Compensation Act (RECA). It also recommends that RECA
should be "more scientifically based," rather than geographical.
Currently, downwinders in 21 counties in Nevada, Utah and
Arizona can be compensated if they suffer from leukemia,
non-Hodgkins lymphoma or any of 18 different types of cancer.
Less encouragingly, the report concludes that "The scientific
evidence indicates that in most cases it is unlikely that
exposure to radiation from fallout was a substantial,
contributing cause to developing cancer," and that
science-driven changes to RECA would likely "result in few
successful claims." As such, NAS recommends that the number of
diseases compensated by RECA should not be expanded beyond the
current 18, while also calling on the Centers for Disease
Control and National Cancer Institute to complete national dose
estimates for all fallout radioactivity-not just the Iodine-131
that fell in heavy levels on several Idaho counties in the 1950s
and '60s.
What effect the report will have on any actual expansions or
replacements of RECA is unclear. Congress is responsible for
voting on any changes to the program, but the NAS report has no
bearing on who may spearhead the effort or what the specifics of
any forthcoming legislation would be. Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo has
already announced plans to introduce legislation calling for all
of Idaho to be added to RECA, despite the report's explicit
conclusions that science and medical screenings, not mere
geography, should determine compensation standards.
"It's very frustrating," said Emmett downwinder Tona Henderson
of the vagaries of the report and its nebulous effect on further
congressional action. "Maybe this will be something, but we have
to fight so hard for anything we get. We've seen what the
government can do to us, now we'll see what they can do for us."
Gyrobase © Copyright 2005, BoiseWeekly
*****************************************************************
43 KUAM: Federal report allows residents to apply for compensation due to
radiation exposure
[KUAM.COM home] -->
by Sabrina Salas Matanane, KUAM News
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
The question of whether Guam was exposed to radiation fallout
from nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific has finally been
answered with the release of the findings of a congressionally
mandated study. The report has now opened the doors for Guam
residents to apply for compensation.
While the territory recently received word that it is eligible
to apply for compensation for radiation exposure, apparently
there's still a ways to go before compensation will actually be
awarded.
It's a journey that has taken Guam as far as the nation's
capitol, as the blue ribbon panel formed by the Legislature
several years ago appeared before a congressional committee in
Washington D.C. making the case that Guam should be eligible for
compensation for radiation exposure from nuclear testing
conducted in the Marshall Islands more than a half-century ago.
Guam was seeking compensation under two specific categories of
radiation exposure: "downwinders" (people affected by wind blown
fallout), and ship contamination from military ships that were
in Marshall Island test sites that came to Guam for washdown and
decontamination. The Pacific Association of Radiation Survivors
headed by Robert Celestial over the years has been seeking help
from lawmakers and Guam's delegates.
Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo recently received word that the
National Research Council had issued a report which was key to
Guam's quest for compensation. Specific to the island, the
report validated the island's contention that local residents
were exposed to radiation fallout. Secondly, the report lifted
geographic limitations for compensation.
Dr. Thomas Borak is a member of the committee to assess the
scientific information for the radiation exposure screening and
education program, which helped produce the report. He informed
KUAM News, "Guam will be eligible the citizens of Guam will be
able to apply for compensation just like the citizens of any
county in the U.S."
But according to Dr. Borak, receiving compensation is not as
easy as just applying. "There is no identifying mark," he
explained, "there's no special feature of a given cancer to say
uh-huh this was a cancer that was caused by radiation, here's a
cancer that was caused by smoking, here's a cancer that was
caused by asbestos"
Dr. Borak said that efforts are now underway to establish a new
set of criteria to determine the level of exposure and the
probability that cancer or other diseases are linked to nuclear
testing. For example, individuals with cancer who wish to file a
claim must first go through a screening process to determine
their eligibility based on the probability of fallout as a cause
of their cancer. Once the set of criteria is established,
Congress will still need to determine the level of compensation
to be awarded.
But at least for the moment, it's official that Guam residents
will finally be eligible to apply.
KUAM's Clynt Ridgell contributed to this report
Copyright © 2000-2005 by Pacific Telestations, Inc.
*****************************************************************
44 ABQjournal: LANL Wants Larger Nuke Storage Dump
Albuquerque Journal newspaper.
Wednesday, May 4, 2005
Albuquerque Journal--> By Adam Rankin
Journal Staff Writer
Protest was in the air at a Santa Fe meeting Tuesday night
over a planned Los Alamos National Laboratory nuclear waste dump
and storage facility expansion.
Panel members from the state Environment Department, the
Energy Department and lab environmental watchdogs sparred among
themselves and with confrontational audience members over the
future of LANL's Area G.
Toward the end of the public forum, hosted and organized by
the Northern New Mexico Citizens Advisory Board, audience
members began distributing brightly colored posters expressing
their discontent over LANL's waste production and management.
"Land of the labs, home of the waste," read one. "Like
Waste? You'll Love Los Alamos," read another. "Largest nuclear
waste dump in the Southwest 19 miles from the Santa Fe Plaza,"
read a third. And there were more.
In all, close to 150 people gathered at Santa Fe Community
College to learn of LANL and DOE's plans to expand Area G by
nearly 50 percent.
Tony Stanford, LANL's facilities and waste operations
division leader, told the crowd that the laboratory is running
out of space at Area G to permanently bury low-level radioactive
waste it generates. The expansion, planned since 1999, will
increase Area G by about 30 acres to 93 acres atop one of the
mesas adjacent to San Ildefonso Pueblo.
Santa Fean Betsy Millard expressed bewilderment at the
decision to expand the site while the lab continues to produce
waste.
"You've just got to stop generating this waste" until you
figure out how to deal with the waste that has already been
buried, she said. "This is just simple, basic responsibility."
Former San Ildefonso Gov. Gilbert Sanchez used fiery
language to draw attention to his people's plight, watching what
is their ancestral land become contaminated by LANL's waste
facilities.
"That is our sacred area," he said. "I don't think a
synagogue or a Roman Catholic church would allow you to do the
things that you are doing on our ancestral land."
Neil Weber, in charge of the pueblo's environment
department, described the waste site and LANL's associated
facilities above the pueblo land as "this insult."
LANL and DOE officials sought to assure the audience that
the lab's monitoring efforts and controls maintain radioactive
and chemical emissions from the site well below federal
standards.
Ken Hargis, LANL's acting environmental stewardship chief,
said that LANL's radioactive emissions make up about 1 percent
of the dose people receive in a year just from background
sources, such as the sun. He said LANL air emissions of
plutonium and americium are all under 5 percent of the federal
limit.
To demonstrate their good faith, DOE's John Ordaz, the
assistant chief for environmental management at LANL, offered to
take anyone interested on a tour of the site and gave out his
office and cell phone numbers to the crowd.
Copyright Albuquerque Journal
Steve@abqjournal.com
*****************************************************************
45 Las Vegas SUN: State argues to get all documents on Yucca
Mountain made public
State argues to get all documents on Yucca Mountain made public
By Suzanne Struglinski SUN WASHINGTON
BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- An attorney for Nevada was to argue today at an
Atomic Safety Licensing Board hearing that the Energy Department
needs to make certain Yucca Mountain project documents public.
The board's eventual decision will determine if the department
has to hand over certain documents it does not want to load into
a database right away.
A ruling in Nevada's favor may further delay the nuclear dump
planed for Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
Attorney Charles Fitzpatrick of Egan, Fitzpatrick, Malsch and
Cynkar, the law firm hired by the state to handle Yucca issues,
was to appear before the board at a hearing this morning.
The state argues that the department needs to follow the rules
pertaining to the Licensing Support Network, a document database
that is supposed to include everything related to the proposed
nuclear waste dump.
Attorney Joe Egan, who also represents the state, said he wants
to get the "maximum disclosure of information that the law
permits."
If the board sides with Nevada, it may take longer for the
department to finalize its documents in the database, but Egan
said this is not a tactic just to delay the project more.
"This is information we believe is really important to see,"
Egan said.
The database is supposed to contain all Yucca Mountain
documents related to work on license application, ranging from
scientific data documents to e-mails between department
employees. The commission cannot start work on the project's
license application until six months after the documents are
finalized. The department has not yet submitted its license
application.
E-mails have been the subject of the the most recent
controversy in the Yucca debate. In March the Energy Department
discovered messages sent by U.S. Geological Service employees
that suggest they falsified technical data on how water flows
through the mountain. The department discovered the e-mails
while going through documents to put in the database.
The department wants to finalize its document collection by the
end of June so it would be able to submit the license
application by the end of the year. The department's lawyers
argue it does not have enough time to make certain documents
public when it finalizes the database but would make them
available later.
Egan said the state believes the department is working with an
"artificial deadline" and should be required to put everything
in the database at once, as the law states.
In January, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, which
operates within the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ordered the
Energy Department, the state and other Yucca critics, to find
common ground on how to handle millions of federal documents
expected to be loaded into database.
The board wants to set guidelines to avoid "hundreds, if not
thousands" of contentions Nevada would likely raise during
licensing hearings on documents the department would have left
out of the database claiming attorney-client privilege or other
special classifications, according to the board's decision in
January.
Lawyers with Virginia-based firm Egan, Fitzpatrick, Malsch and
Cynkar have been meeting with lawyers from another Virginia law
firm, Hutton and Williams, which represents the Energy
Department on Yucca licensing matters.
The lawyers generally agreed on how the department should
process documents that go into the database but today's hearing
will try to resolve their remaining disagreements.
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
46 Salt Lake Tribune: Yucca won't take waste from Utah
Article Last Updated: 05/04/2005 07:40:29 AM
The Nevada site won't take nuclear fuel in canisters like those
for the proposed PFS site
By Patty Henetz The Salt Lake Tribune
A top Energy Department official on Tuesday said that any
waste shipped to a high-level nuclear-waste facility planned for
the Skull Valley Goshute reservation would not be accepted at
the Yucca Mountain, Nev., federal waste repository.
David Zabransky of the Energy Department's Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management, speaking in Salt Lake City to
representatives of the Western Interstate Energy Board, said
federal contract requirements forbid acceptance of spent nuclear
fuel welded into any type of canister.
That would include the 44,000 tons of waste that Private
Fuel Storage proposes to transport to Utah, he said.
Zabransky also said that the conditions aren't new. In fact,
DOE rules on accepting waste from nuclear reactors - that it be
"bare fuel," that is, packed directly from reactors' cooling
pools - have been known since the late 1980s.
Dianne Nielson, executive director of the Utah Department of
Environmental Quality, said after Zabransky's presentation that
the Energy Department and the NRC, by not dealing with what has
turned out to be a long-standing interpretation of what is known
as the Standard Contract, have abdicated responsibility for PFS
and whether it would indeed be a temporary facility.
"It isn't that they didn't plan for it," she said. "They've
chosen to ignore it."
In October, when DOE waste transportation planner Gary
Lanthrum said the PFS fuel might not be acceptable at the
federal repository 90 miles north of Las Vegas, the
interpretation seemed novel.
Surprised Utah officials made the revelation the centerpiece
of an appeal to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's licensing
board. They said it seemed to contradict PFS assertions that
their $3.1 billion facility 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City
would only be a Yucca Mountain way station.
But the board has refused to consider the argument, and is
expected to rule any day on whether to give its final approval
to PFS's license application, Nielson said.
The DOE's position on the welded casks - such treatment means
they cannot be inspected - gives weight to Utah's fears that PFS
will become a substitute for Yucca Mountain, which has been
beset by delays, lawsuits and recent disclosures that a
government scientist falsified data to support the project.
Yucca Mountain was supposed to open in 1998, then in 2010, but
now probably won't open until 2015, if ever.
"It's difficult under any scenario to understand how the
NRC can license PFS as a temporary facility," Nielson said. "I
don't mean to sound doomsday. To me this means this stays on the
list [of what] has to be addressed."
Zabransky said it would be technically possible to set up a
facility at Yucca where the PFS canisters, or similar canisters
from any nuclear utility that stores spent fuel rods in casks
once their cooling pools are full, could be cut open and
repackaged. But that would be a "burden to the system," he said.
It also would be possible to renegotiate the contract, he
said.
But that would mean the utilities might have to make
concessions unfavorable to their interests, which he indicated
would be unlikely.
phenetz@sltrib.com
© Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
47 lamonitor.com: Forum weighs nuke waste area expansion
ROGER SNODGRASS, roger@lamonitor.com, Monitor Assistant Editor
SANTA FE - A seminar Tuesday on Area G, Los Alamos National
Laboratory's radioactive waste disposal area, revealed long-term
expansion plans, while exposing rifts between the weapons lab
and its political and environmental critics.
Tony Stanford, the lab's nuclear waste leader said that Area G,
with only one of its excavated pits still active, is reaching
its current capacity for low-level waste burial, but that the
area still had a long future.
On the basis of an environmental assessment already made, the
National Nuclear Security Administration has decided to expand
operations into 30 acres of an untapped section in the area
known as Zone 4.
The plan is to abide by the New Mexico Environmental
Department's Consent Order, signed in March, which calls for the
closure of Area G by 2015, but to begin opening the new zone
within the next few months.
John Ordaz, DOE's assistant manager for environmental
stewardship at the laboratory, said he had learned on a recent
visit to Washington that a new site wide environmental impact
statement would be done, because of new NNSA anticipated
consolidation activities within the weapons program.
A supplemental impact statement for LANL is currently underway,
but Ordaz said that the new document was called for because of
"changes in programmatic activities."
Ken Hargis, LANL's environmental stewardship division leader,
described the lab's monitoring program that continually studies
exposure risks at Area G from four defined pathways -
inhalation, direct contact, water and food.
"The exposure is very small," he said.
Even the individual with the greatest risk of exposure receives
only 1 percent of the radioactive dose that the same person
receives from all background sources, including natural radon
and cosmic radiation, he noted.
Traces of radioactive tritium, plutonium, americium and cesium,
while present in the Area G environment are only a fraction of
DOE's acceptable dose standards, according to the lab's studies.
Exposure by all pathways, for example, based on composite
information and projected from the beginning of the site in 1957
for 1,000 years would contribute 5.5 millirem per year out of a
total of 100 millirem allowed by DOE.
The meeting, organized by Northern New Mexico Citizens Advisory
Board, included a presentation by a representative of
neighboring San Ildefonso Pueblo, who described the DOE landfill
as an insult and a desecration of cultural resources.
Neil Webber, the pueblo's environmental director, was criticized
at the meeting by former San Ildefonso Gov. Gilbert Sanchez for
minimizing the pueblo's complaint.
Joni Arends, executive director of Concerned Citizens for
Nuclear Safety, asked the advisory board to recommend that DOE
apply itself to protecting the Rio Grande.
"Stop burying waste in unlined pits, trenches and shafts at Area
G," she demanded.
She also recommended an end to the current practice of storing
vulnerable drums of transuranic waste in tents constructed with
Tedlar, a polyvinyl fluoride film, calling for them to be
replaced by Hardened On-Site Structures that could withstand a
Boeing 747 crash.
Future conflicts between the laboratory and the NMED were
foreshadowed, when hazardous waste chief James Bearzi vowed that
the state would issue two draft permits under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act within the next nine months.
The permits would govern ongoing operations at the laboratory,
including the storage of hazardous waste and closure
requirements for contaminated sites like Area G.
He read a statement by NMED Secretary Ron Curry calling for more
openness on issues related to Area G.
"I hope LANL uses this meeting to begin the process of 'raising
the veil' on Area G and their future plans," Curry said in the
statement.
Bearzi said the state's primary concern was a plume of tritium
vapor that has been detected but not definitely measured in the
area below the low-waste dump.
Tritium, while having a relatively short half- life of about 12
years, is indicative of contaminant transport by water.
Both Bearzi and Rick Mayer, the Environmental Protection
Administration's site officer at LANL, directly answered the
advisory board's first question on whether there was
contamination in the soil or water at Area G in the affirmative.
Mayer said current investigations, which include drilling 37
boreholes under the state's consent order would help define the
tritium plume.
Concerning hazardous chemicals, he noted that no PCB's
(Polychlorinated Biphenyls) have so far been discovered above
detection limits in storm water runoff from Area G.
Midway through the meeting, activists in the audience quietly
began holding up placards with anti-nuclear and anti-laboratory
slogans.
Public comment included technical questions about contents of
the waste, concerns about DOE's plans to "cap and monitor"
existing pits and questions about the thousand-year standard for
projecting environmental impact.
Lydia Clark of Santa Fe pointed out that a recent court ruling
had said 10,000 years was inadequate in the case of the proposed
Yucca Mountain nuclear depository.
Another speaker, who did not identify himself, complained that
the forum had been an exercise in narrowing perceptions.
"They want us to look through the keyhole and not focus on the
big picture," he said. "It's not only waste. That which produced
it is also deadly."
© 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
48 Rapid City Journal: Uranium cleanup meetings set
Last Updated: Tuesday, May 3, 2005 11:07 PM MDT
BUFFALO -- The USDA Forest Service, Environmental Protection
Agency and the state of South Dakota are developing a final
cleanup plan for the Riley Pass Abandoned Uranium Mines site.
Forest Service officials will present an overview of activities
at the site and answer questions at an information meeting
beginning at 6 p.m. Wednesday, May 11, at the Harding County
Recreational Center, 204 Hodge, in Buffalo.
Community interviews will run from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m., 3 p.m. to
5 p.m. and 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. Thursday, May 12, at the Harding
County Courthouse, 410 Ramsland.
The session will allow the community to share concerns and
expectations with the Forest Service. The community plan
identifies opportunities for the public to be informed of
cleanup activities at the site. The community involvement plan
is based upon the information gathered through stakeholder
interviews.
For information, contact Laurie Walters-Clark, on-scene
coordinator, Sioux Ranger District, P.O. Box 32, Camp Crook, SD
57724, call 605-797-4432 or e-mail: lwaltersclark@fs.fed.us.
This entire Web site content copyright © The Rapid City Journal.
All Rights Reserved. Call us at 605-394-8300 or 800-843-2300
to debbie.renner@rapidcityjournal.com.
*****************************************************************
49 KESQ: CA: Nevada asking NRC panel to order more Yucca documents made public
3 Palm Springs,
May 4, 2005
LAS VEGAS Nevada wants the federal Energy Department to release
more documents about the Yucca Mountain project.The state's
arguing before the Atomic Safety Licensing Board today in
Washington that the Energy Department hasn't posted everything
about the project on a document database called the Licensing
Support Network.The board's part of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission -- which wants records about the repository posted
six months before it begins considering an Energy Department
license to open and operate the repository.A ruling for the
state might further delay plans for the project -- 90 miles
northwest of Las Vegas.Investigations are underway after the
revelation in March that e-mails posted on the database suggest
technical data was falsified on the key question of water
seeping through the mountain. Copyright 2005 Associated
Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
All content © Copyright 2002 - 2005 WorldNow and KESQ. All
Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
50 KFOR: Radioactive tract
May 4, 2005
The tract of land runs along Highway 74 near the Kerr-McGee
facility. (Photo: Google Maps)
ALI MEYER REPORTING
Nuclear experiments were once conducted on Oklahoma soil not so
long ago and not so far away. Radioactivity, specifically
uranium and thorium, was considered a hidden danger lurking
below the surface. O-DOT studied the area and made some
startling conclusions.
The location is a tract of land along Portland Avenue. The
testing occurred on an area in northwest Oklahoma City, near
Edmond. Details have surfaced about radioactive experiments that
took place on that property. Neighbors are still raising
eyebrows at the Kerr-McGee property.
Kerr-McGee closed down their nuclear research program more than
a decade ago. They still continue to hold a license for uranium
and thorium, and until a few years ago, there was still
contaminated soil on the property grounds.
To adults and children in the area, the danger is rarely
recognizable. They are unaware that they are just around the
corner from a licensed nuclear testing site.
Until recently, families living near the site had no idea of the
radioactive experiments. They are skeptical and uncomfortable
with the company's assurances that the site has been cleaned up.
Mindi, one of the nearby neighbors, says, “We're terrified for
many reasons.”
“How is this going to affect our property values, our children
and even our health?” Jackie, another area resident, asks.
These residents live less than a mile down the road from the
Kerr-McGee technical center.
From the 1960's to the 1980's, scientists at this facility
experimented with radioactive elements on-site.
John Christiansen, Kerr-McGee Spokesperson says, “We worked with
small quantities of uranium and thorium as part of research.”
According to a safety evaluation report, Kerr-McGee used uranium
and thorium in small scale experiments for the "Development,
testing and calibration of instruments used for the company's
mineral prospecting."
The experiments were conducted outside on the north end of the
property. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission tells us Kerr-McGee
used eight different calibration test pits for those
experiments. The uranium and thorium were contained in a
fiberglass pipe and placed in a vault built of steel. The vault
was buried vertically in the ground, filled with sand, and
locked with a steel cover.
Mr. Christiansen says, “We place a high priority on safety and
care to the environment. We emphasize proper management at all
of our facilities worldwide to ensure there are no adverse
effects for workers or residents who live nearby.”
O-Dot spokesperson Terri Angier says, “The tract is a 700 foot
study area.”
Several years ago, the Oklahoma Department of Transportation was
considering building a highway on the Kerr-McGee property. O-DOT
wanted to widen state Highway 74. It runs right next to the
technical center.
NewsChannel 4 obtained an inter-office memo. The memo mentions
O-DOT engineers studying what they called "Hazardous wastes and
leaking underground storage tanks."
The memo recommended avoiding the Kerr-McGee property because of
contamination.
“We wanted to be able to move immediately with construction when
funding became available.”
Terri Angier of O-DOT says. “It can take several years and we
didn't want the process, our process, to be slowed down by [a
contaminated site].”
Two years after O-DOT made plans to build on the other side of
the existing highway, Kerr-McGee applied to decommission their
license for nuclear materials.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the NRC, required Kerr-McGee
to excavate their test pits, test the soil and water for
radiation, then get rid of it.
Kerr-McGee Spokesperson John Christiansen says, “The last
shipments have departed here. They've been taken to a licensed
storage facility in Utah and destroyed. We're waiting for the
NRC to terminate the license.”
According to NRC inspectors, there were no clean-up violations.
Everything was done by-the-book. The NRC’s report showed that no
radiation exposure to any member of the public is expected.
Neighbors in the area still find little comfort in that reality.
Nearby resident Jackie says, “Not to be too skeptical, but how
much is lip service and how much is actual [fact].”
Neighbors would have rather known about their nuclear neighbor
before they decided to raise their families here.
Resident Mindi says, “We would have chosen differently. We would
not have lived so close.”
Kerr-McGee tells us they have not done experiments with the
uranium and thorium since 1989. The last contaminated soil left
the facility in 2002 and they paid for the hazardous waste
clean-up themselves.
Copyright 2005 KFOR-TV-DT. All rights reserved. This material
Copyright 2001 - 2005 WorldNow and KFOR-TV . All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
51 Brattleboro Reformer: Dry cask debate resumes Thursday
May 04, 2005 Brattleboro, VT
By CAROLYN LORIé
Reformer Staff
BRATTLEBORO -- On Thursday afternoon, the State House Natural
Resources and Energy Committee will resume its discussion on dry
cask storage at Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee.
Officials at the plant are seeking to install concrete casks at
the plant in order to make room in the spent fuel pool, which
will be filled to capacity by 2008.
If the plant's bid to increase power by 20 percent is approved,
the casks will be necessary in 2007.
The Legislature must approve the request before Vermont Yankee
officials can apply to the Vermont Public Service Board for a
certificate of public good.
That process can take as long as one year.
Last Thursday, committee chairman Robert Dostis, D-Waterbury,
expressed confidence that a final bill would be voted on by the
end of this week.
Local Reps. Sarah Edwards, P-Brattleboro, and Steven Darrow,
D-Putney, seemed less optimistic, as the committee struggles
with what conditions to include on the bill.
On Monday, the two legislators met with members of the Windham
Regional Commission and the Brattleboro Development Credit
Corporation and outlined some of the challenges facing the
Legislature.
Darrow accused Entergy officials of stonewalling attempts made
by legislators to get information by submitting written answers
that were meaningless.
"There were words, sentences and paragraphs but when you looked
at it, legalisticly, it didn't say anything," said Darrow.
WRC member John Christiansen of Guilford expressed frustration
that not enough was being done to study the long-term impact on
the area of storing high-level nuclear waste.
"We are the ones who may, in the future, be suffering," he told
the two representatives.
Edwards agreed, saying that many questions remain unanswered,
which is why the committee is proceeding cautiously.
Some commission members voiced concern about the economic
impact of the plant closing early if dry cask storage is not
approved.
Vermont Yankee employs over 500 people and provides the state
with more than one third of its power at below-market rates.
According to Edwards, however, Entergy officials have suggested
that they will close the plant in 2008 if their bid to increase
power or "uprate" is not approved.
When asked whether this was Entergy's plan, Vermont Yankee
spokesman Rob Williams said: "We think the plant is a good
candidate for uprate. We believe it will be granted."
Copyright ©1999-2005 New England Newspapers, Inc.,
*****************************************************************
52 KLTV TX: Senate approves radioactive waste bill
7 Tyler-Longview-Jacksonville,
May 5, 2005
AUSTIN The state Senate today approved a bill that would require
a Dallas company to pay a fee to dispose of radioactive waste in
Texas.The bill also would give the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality jurisdiction over the disposal of most
radioactive waste.The Texas Department of State Health Services
currently has jurisdiction.Waste Control Specialists recently
won a seven and a-half (M) million dollar contract to store tons
of uranium byproduct from Ohio -- in West Texas, near
Andrews.Waste Control Specialists has a license to store the
waste, but the company also has a state application pending to
dispose of it.If the application is granted, the bill says Waste
Control Specialists would pay the state eight percent of its
gross receipts from its operations under the disposal
license.Andrews County will receive two percent of the gross
receipts.___Senator Robert Duncan's uranium byproduct waste bill
is SB1667
Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights
Copyright 2001 - 2005 WorldNow and KLTV. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
53 North County Times: NRC says it will continue to address spent fuel security
North San Diego and Southwest Riverside
Tuesday, May 3, 2005 11:53 PM PDT
By: PAUL SISSON - Staff Writer
SAN CLEMENTE ---- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has overseen
unspecified upgrades to further secure the safety of spent
nuclear fuel at the San Onofre nuclear power plant, and may
order more in the wake of a recent finding by the National
Academy of Sciences.
"There were things that were done in the past year, but nothing
yet in response to the letter from the (National Academy of
Sciences,)" said Mike Hay, branch chief of the commission's
Region 4 office that oversees San Onofre.
Hay and other commission officials conducted San Onofre's annual
safety assessment meeting Tuesday at the Country Plaza Inn in
San Clemente. The meeting, which included many NRC and Southern
California Edison employees, was only sparsely attended by the
public.
As it did last year for 2003, the commission gave Edison, San
Onofre's majority owner and operator, high marks for safety in
2004.
"San Onofre operated in a manner that preserved public health
and safety," said Clyde Osterholtz, the plant's resident NRC
inspector.
Every year, the commission holds one safety-related public
meeting at each of the 65 nuclear power plants it regulates. The
meetings are designed to give the public a chance to ask
questions about how well each plant had been run during the
previous year.
While most areas of the plant's operation were reported as
problem-free, one shutdown in 2004 triggered additional scrutiny.
On April 10, 2004, San Onofre's Unit 2 reactor automatically and
unexpectedly shut down after one of its feedwater pumps turned
off.
According to NRC inspection reports, the failure was later
traced to faulty wiring in an electronic device that controls
the pumps that supply a steady stream of cool water to keep the
plant from overheating. Though the problem was repaired quickly,
the commission ordered an additional safety inspection of Unit 2
because the reactor had a similar shutdown in 2002.
Although oversight data, including inspection reports, are
available to the public, the commission continues to withhold
information on whether San Onofre, or any other U.S. nuclear
plant, has passed security tests conducted since the terrorist
attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
A recent paper by the National Academy of Sciences called for
closer scrutiny of spent-fuel pools at nuclear plants such as
San Onofre. The pools contain thousands of highly radioactive
fuel rods, and the academy worried that some pools could be
vulnerable to attack from the air.
Tony Vegel, deputy director of the commission's Region 4 office,
said his organization is interested in more security for
spent-fuel pools and dry-cask storage bunkers, where spent
nuclear fuel is stored at plants such as San Onofre.
"We are definitely looking at that," Vegel said.
Commission branch chief Mike Hay also noted that access to
airplanes has been reduced.
"I think it's important to remember also all the things that
they have done since 9-11 to prevent anyone from getting ahold
of an airplane in the first place," Hay said.
San Clemente resident Howard Rechtson wondered how an attack on
San Onofre could be repelled.
Dwight Nunn, vice president of engineering and technical
services for Edison, said the plant's private security force has
been "more than doubled" since the 9-11 attacks.
"We just had a force-on-force drill, and our force responded
very well," Nunn said, referring to regular security drills
where a group of mock adversaries simulates attacking terrorist
adversaries.
After 9-11, the NRC stopped releasing the results of
force-on-force drills, leaving the public without an objective
measure of security at the plant.
Contact staff writer Paul Sisson at (760) 901-4087 or
psisson@nctimes.com.
webmaster@nctimes.com
© 1997-2005 North
County Times - Lee Enterprises editor@nctimes.com
*****************************************************************
54 Guardian Unlimited: World Mayors Urge Nuclear Disarmament
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Wednesday May 4, 2005 2:46 AM
AP Photo NYAR104
By NICK WADHAMS
Associated Press Writer
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Most of the world's people want nuclear
weapons abolished, a fact that their governments routinely
ignore, a group of mayors said Tuesday as it urged a U.N.
nuclear conference to work toward dismantling all nuclear
stockpiles.
The Mayors for Peace said local officials and their citizens
understand far better than national leaders the horrible
destruction that nuclear weapons would bring because they and
their cities would suffer the worst from an attack.
``People live in cities, people work in cities, ... and when
there is a war, people die in cities,'' said Herbert
Schmalstieg, mayor of Hannover, Germany.
The mayor group's visit to the United Nations coincides with a
conference at the United Nations where foreign ministers and
other national officials from around the world have gathered to
review the 35-year-old Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
The mayors hope to persuade governments to sign onto a road map
to eliminate nuclear weapons by 2020. They said polls
consistently show that ordinary people want their leaders simply
to abolish nuclear weapons, something that governments should
think of more often.
``The overwhelming majority of the world wants nuclear weapons
eliminated, but a handful on men in the world want to keep
nuclear weapons,'' said Hiroshima Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba.
Hiroshima was the first city attacked by an atomic bomb on Aug.
6, 1945 - killing 140,000 and inflicting grave illnesses on
thousands more.
Akiba was accompanied by dozens of other city officials from
around the world, including the mayor of Nagasaki, Kaxunaga
Itoh, and Donald Plusquellic, the mayor of Akron, Ohio who is
also the president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
55 New Scientist Interview: After the bomb - Interview
[NewScientist.com]
05 May 2005
Kaisha Atakhanova was born in Karaganda, an industrial city and
former gulag. She graduated in biology from Karaganda State
University and began full-time research, specialising eventually
in the genetic effects of radiation on amphibians. In 1992 she
abandoned her research to found the Karaganda Ecological Center,
to promote environmental protection and grass-roots democracy in
Kazakhstan. She recently ran a successful campaign to block a
plan to import nuclear waste into Kazakhstan for disposal
What do you remember about the nuclear tests when you were
young?
We lived 400 kilometres away from the tests, which took place in
a closed area of steppe they called the Polygon. But even so, I
remember as a child how the ceiling light fittings shook in our
house and the land seemed to move sometimes. These were the
underground nuclear tests, which replaced atmospheric tests
after the nuclear test ban treaty in 1963. We didn't know what
they were at the time. An earthquake maybe, people said.
Really, people just didn't know what was happening?
It was a secret, even when the atmospheric tests were going on.
People saw these huge mushrooms in the sky, but they didn't know
what they were. When the tests were going on, the military came
to the villages and told people to come out into the streets, to
lie down in ditches and cover themselves with white materials
such as sheets or towels, and not to look up. But they still
looked up, because they were curious about what was going on,
with all the flashing lights.
After each test, the military would give the people some red
wine, which was supposed to be an antidote to radiation. They
took blood samples and then took them out of the village for a
few days, until the dust settled. But the cattle and chickens
and everything else stayed in the villages. Afterwards the
people carried on living in radioactive houses and with
radioactive animals.
When did people learn the truth?
It was only with perestroika in the 1980s that we found out what
had been going on. And the tests continued even then. The last
one was in 1989 and the Polygon was not abandoned by the
military until 1991.
It was a great experiment on the people of Kazakhstan. It was
devastating and the effects are still going on. When the young
women of that time were pregnant, their embryos were affected by
radiation. Their babies are now grown up and having their own
children. The genetic damage is being passed on down the
generations and people are still getting ill. Both my parents
died of cancer about 10 years ago. My sister also died of
cancer. I only have one brother left, and I am really, really
upset because now he has cancer. I think he might die soon. I
may not see him again.
What was your upbringing like?
My father was a coal miner in Karaganda, a big industrial city
in eastern Kazakhstan. But nature was the place where I always
felt comfortable. I went to the steppe a lot. The flat steppe
was a wide open space like the ocean, and you could see the sun
and the moon at the same time.
I always liked animals and I became a biologist. After I
graduated from the Karaganda State University, I did
environmental and biological research. I was interested in
genetic studies: cells and chromosomes. My speciality was
amphibians, especially frogs. They are unique objects of
research because they live on the land and in the water. Frogs
are like a sponge. They absorb everything, and everything goes
through them.
Including radiation?
Yes, of course. When perestroika came and we found out that
nuclear tests had been carried out in our area, my colleagues
and I decided to help research the effects. We wanted to show
that the wildlife and people who lived there had suffered. Once
the military had left, we decided to do some field studies in
the Polygon near Semipalatinsk. We had a dose meter, but we
didn't have proper protective clothing. We just wore tracksuits
and gloves and wellington boots. We had masks and we covered our
hair. We set up camp and went exploring.
What did you find?
We were there for two months the first time. It was like one
long nightmare. Over 40 years there had been almost 500 nuclear
tests there, in the air and underground. Together they were
equivalent in strength to 20,000 Hiroshima bombs. When we first
went, we found lots of old military machinery and equipment,
planes and tanks that had been left out in the open during the
tests to see how they were affected. Afterwards they were put
into big dumps. We went past these dumps regularly and I saw
that they were gradually getting smaller and smaller.
We found out that the locals were taking the radioactive
material for scrap or to use in their houses or on farms. They
took whatever they could. It was good quality, you see. We had a
guide who was a local doctor. One day when we came across some
telephone wire, she picked it up and said it was good quality,
some general or colonel had probably used it. So she took it
home and used it for her telephone.
The Polygon had huge bunkers, like a whole underground city. The
locals knew about them. They said the military had left things
such as fuel there, and they went to fetch it for their
tractors. Businessmen hired locals to smelt non-ferrous metals
such as copper. The stuff in those bunkers was worth millions.
At one time, the Americans were helping to block the openings to
mines where there had been underground tests to reduce the
radioactivity, and the locals were reopening them to get at the
valuable scrap inside.
What research did you do at the Polygon?
I did research into animals and their habitats. I wanted to see
what kind of cellular changes the testing had caused. In the
Polygon there were areas with background radiation levels of
over 20,000 microroentgens per hour, 2000 times above normal. I
had a chance to see how this affected animals that had been
there a long time, generation after generation. We found that
even small amounts of radiation caused significant changes in
cells and chromosomes.
Frogs were good for doing these tests because they absorbed the
radiation and they have big chromosomes, so you can see the
damage. I collected frogs on the testing grounds, especially
from a nuclear lake that we found. This was where the largest
nuclear explosion took place, in 1965 on the dry bed of the
river Shagan. To prevent the nearby river Irtysh being
contaminated with radioactive dust, the Shagan was dammed and a
radioactive lake formed. The military put carp in the atomic
lake. The fish grew really large and we carried out tests on the
fish, lizards and frogs. “Those who lived near the test sites
knew nothing of the risks. They took their cattle to feed there”
Did anyone else know this nuclear lake existed?
The military knew about it, of course, but until we went no
non-military scientists knew about it. The local people knew it
was there, but they didn't know it was dangerous. They went
fishing in it, even swam in it. When we started work, the people
who lived in the villages near the Polygon knew nothing about
the risks. They took their cattle and goats to feed on the
pastures there.
It must have been an opportune time to do research.
Yes and no. After the Soviet Union collapsed, we could do things
and go to places that we couldn't before. But it was a difficult
time because there was little funding. Eventually we got grants
from the MacArthur Foundation and European nuclear agencies, and
that helped a lot. For two years we carried out research in the
village of Murzhik, 40 kilometres from ground zero where the
tests were carried out.
But you gave up research. Why?
After a while I felt we had got a lot of scientific information
from the research. It showed that the population suffered from
even small doses of radiation. But the people themselves felt
like guinea pigs. For 70 years, as citizens of the Soviet Union,
they had had pensions and social benefits from the state. They
thought that now, with the Polygon closed and the discovery that
their health had suffered, someone would come and treat them.
Instead scientists came to test them and write scientific papers
about them, but nothing actually changed in their lives. They
had been poisoned and their social conditions were bad, but
nobody helped them. So I started on public work to help people
change their lives.
What did you do?
I couldn't give them clean land to live on. So in 1992 I was one
of those who started the Ecocenter, a small organisation that
encourages people to defend their environmental rights and
demand help. We give seminars where we tell people about the
laws and how to get access to information, apply for money,
start court proceedings and lobby for their interests.
For example, we helped one village get a grant from the
Counterpart Consortium, an environmental group in central Asia
that receives money from the US government. The group bought 50
goats, built a shed for them and bought animal feed from local
businesses. The milk had good effects on their health:
tuberculosis is widespread there, but it became scarcer once
they had their own source of milk. The goats now have offspring,
which the villagers are giving to other nearby communities. But
overall things haven't changed much. It is a problem of poverty
as much as radiation.
Why don't people leave the steppe?
They don't want to. They have nowhere else to live. They've been
there a long time. And the radiation is not high everywhere.
It's worst around ground zero and the nuclear lake. In other
places it is not too bad.
Does the government approve of your work?
They support us. Not financially, but they haven't stopped us.
That is important.
We have had a big campaign recently to prevent a
government-owned company from bringing nuclear waste from around
the world to Kazakhstan. It would come by rail from Russia. They
dreamed of making billions of dollars by burying the waste here,
and they promised that some of the money would go to
decontaminating the huge piles of abandoned waste in the dumps.
But we campaigned against it, and in the end we got parliament
to defeat it.
Is your green movement like those in the west?
A bit. The authorities are afraid of us as an environmental
movement. They don't know what to expect, so they are careful.
But I don't like people to demonstrate in the streets. I think
you should demonstrate from inside, by asserting your rights.
Every day is a step towards democracy for us.
Do people in Kazakhstan really have more freedom now?
Yes, we do. My father came from southern Kazakhstan. He fought
in the second world war, but after the war he could not go home
to his native village due to Stalin's laws. He was sent to
Karaganda, which was then a kind of gulag for the coal and steel
industry. There he met my mother. But he couldn't go home to see
his relatives.
Last year, for the first time in my life, I went to see the
place where my father was born. I found people there who still
remembered him. It was very sad for me because he had died
without going home. But I gathered some clean soil from his
homeland and took it to put on his grave. It was clean soil, not
like the soil in the north. From issue 2498 of New Scientist
magazine, 07 May 2005, page 44
NewScientist.com
*****************************************************************
56 csmonitor.com: Toward real nuclear disarmament |
for 05/05/2005
Commentary > Opinion
By Sanford Gottlieb
WASHINGTON In an era of terrorism and guerrilla wars, are
nuclear weapons a realistic option? Do they make us more secure?
Nuclear weapons don't deter suicide bombers or guerrilla
fighters. They can't be used in war without producing
radioactive fallout that circles the globe and threatens the
health of innocents. Perhaps they do deter some hostile
governments from harboring thoughts of attacking the US, but
that could be done at much lower levels of destructive power.
The cold war's two superpowers still possess huge nuclear
arsenals - accounting for over 90 percent of the world's nuclear
weapons. The United States has 10,000 nuclear bombs and
warheads, half deployed on submarines, intercontinental
ballistic missiles, bombers, and cruise missiles, and half held
in reserve, stored for possible future use. Russia had 7,800
deployed as of 2004 and 9,200 retired or in storage (not all of
them secured). Just one could destroy a city.
The nuclear club now has eight members, with North Korea and
Iran pounding on the door. Meanwhile, the Bush administration is
pressing Congress to fund nuclear "bunker busters" - which could
kill up to a million city dwellers, depending on the yield - and
new nuclear warheads, even as it insists other countries should
just say no to nuclear arms.
For much of Congress, ours is an invisible arsenal, out of sight
and out of mind. Rep. Dave Hobson, a conservative Republican
from Ohio, is a shining exception. As chair of the House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water, Mr. Hobson has
blocked administration efforts to design a nuclear weapon that
could penetrate deep underground bunkers. At the urging of the
Defense Department, he spent a day at Offutt Air Force Base in
Nebraska being briefed by the Strategic Air Command. But in a
February address to the Arms Control Association, he said, "I
was never told of any specific mission requiring the nuclear
bunker buster." Yet someone is thinking of how to use nukes to
wage war, not just to deter potential attackers. To cover all
bets, the Pentagon is also working on a 30,000-pound
conventional bomb intended to destroy "multistory buildings with
hardened bunkers and tunnel facilities."
Hobson also asserted in his address that "the development of new
weapons for ill-defined future requirements is not what the
nation needs at this time. What is needed and what is absent to
date is leadership and fresh thinking for the 21st century
regarding nuclear security and the future of the US stockpile."
Leadership and fresh thinking have indeed been in short supply.
The Bush administration's pursuit of new nuclear weapons flouts
the spirit of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which
obligates signatories to pursue nuclear disarmament. This
pursuit also undermines President Bush's insistence that others
forgo these arms. Mr. Bush says the chief threat comes from a
nuclear weapon in terrorist hands, and he has launched a naval
effort to intercept contraband nuclear technology.
But, according to Hobson, we spend more on the newest
supercomputer for nuclear weapons than we do to secure the loose
nukes in the former Soviet Union. Bush rejects the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty, which would ban underground nuclear tests that
facilitate weapons development. His divided administration
failed to engage North Korea in meaningful negotiations before
Pyongyang publicly declared it has nuclear arms. The
administration leaves it to our European allies to do the heavy
lifting in negotiations with Iran. And talk of "regime change"
has done little to reassure the nuclear wannabes that the US is
interested in arriving at peaceful solutions.
The Bush administration has one agreement to its credit: the
Treaty of Moscow. Presidents Putin and Bush accepted weapons
levels previously agreed upon by Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin
- no more than 2,200 deployed on either side by 2012. But the
treaty doesn't limit nuclear weapons held in reserve. This is
not nuclear disarmament.
The American public questions the value of keeping nuclear arms.
Two-thirds of respondents to an AP-Ipsos poll in March said no
nation should have nuclear weapons. While nuclear abolition is
on no government's agenda, practical options are available to
the US. These could include: reject new nukes; take the ICBMs
off alert; speed up the reductions agreed upon with Russia and
limit the numbers in reserve; ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty; address the professed security concerns of North Korea
and Iran when seeking to persuade them to forgo nuclear weapons,
and engage the members of the nuclear club in discussions on how
far we can move, together, toward the American public's vision
of a world free of nuclear arms.
" Sanford Gottlieb worked for nongovernmental arms control
organizations from 1960 to 1993. He was executive director of
the National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy, and is the
author of 'Defense Addiction: Can America Kick the Habit?'
www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2005 The Christian Science
Monitor. All rights reserved.
Y
*****************************************************************
57 Deutsche Welle: Germany Pressures US Over Nuke Removal
05.05.05 | 05:06 UTC
The Statue of Liberty in a bomb -- anti-nuclear demos in Berlin
Monday
Germany is using a meeting to review the effectiveness of the
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on Monday to urge the United
States to remove its nuclear missiles from German soil.
Germany will take the opportunity of a meeting in New York on
Monday on the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to
officially increase pressure on the United States to remove its
Cold War-era nuclear weapons from German soil.
The meeting of some 190 nations, convened to address how
seriously the world's fight against the spread of atomic weapons
has been imperiled since the NPT went into effect in 1970, will
give Germany the chance to directly air its concerns over the
150 or so land-based US nuclear weapons still deployed on German
soil.
"The nuclear weapons still housed in Germany are a relic from
the Cold War," said leader of the Green Party Claudia Roth in
Monday's Berliner Zeitung newspaper. "There is no need for them
to be there. They should be removed and destroyed." She added
that while nuclear states continued to hesitate in disarmament
issues, the NPT would be weakened further.
Roth was not alone in calling for the missiles to go. Social
Democrat Gert Weisskirchen from the German foreign ministry and
Liberal Democrat leader Guido Westerwelle echoed the call for
the missiles, mostly based at the Rammstein and BĂĽchel air
bases, to be removed. The removal of the missiles would "add
credibility and strengthen negotiations with other countries,"
Westerwelle said.
German politicians join in call for nuke removal
Last week, German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder called for
progress to be made on strengthening disarmament measures -- but
an opposition demand that the US pull its nuclear weapons from
Germany fell on deaf ears.
Ahead of Monday's five-yearly review of the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty in New York, German Chancellor Gerhard
Schröder called Thursday for progress on strengthening
disarmament measures.
"We have two expectations from the talks," Schröder said in
reference to the NPT conference. "The first is that we reinforce
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as it is now and we need to
put all our efforts into that," he said. "The second is that
there is a credible disarmament mechanism and we hope we will
see movement from countries on this point."
Continued purpose of missiles in question
But the opposition Liberal Democrats (FDP), with backing from
the Green Party, went further and called for an immediate
withdrawal of the US nuclear weapons from Germany -- a surprise
move from a party generally known for its staunchly pro-American
stance.
"It's time to reconsider whether their presence still serves a
relevant purpose," Liberal Democrat MP Werner Hoyer told German
weekly Der Spiegel. Harking back to the days of the Iron
Curtain, most of the 480 US nuclear weapons stored in Europe are
located in Germany, strategically closest to Eastern Europe.
German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer will be attending the
NPT meeting on behalf of Germany and politicians are urging him
to make an official case for the removal of missiles will fall
to him. The call, however, is likely to go unheeded as
Washington has more pressing concerns as the dual crises in
North Korea and Iran worsen and threaten to undermine the treaty
further.
Rogue states offering new threats
The treaty seems increasingly flawed if not outright ineffective
ahead of the conference at the United Nations. Since the treaty
was signed, the world has faced a new era of "rogue" states,
international nuclear smuggling rings, and trans-national
terrorist groups seeking weapons of mass destruction.
"The world has changed but the regime has not changed with it,"
the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
said in a recent study.
Events over the past few days have shown how critical the
situation is. The United States reported that a short-range
missile was fired early Sunday from the east coast of North
Korea. It flew about 100 kilometers (62 miles) until it fell
into the Sea of Japan, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card
told CNN.
North Korea ups the stakes with missile test
US State Department spokesman Kurtis Coope said: "We have long
been concerned about North Korea's missile program and
activities and urge North Korea to continue its moratorium on
ballistic missile tests." North Korea shocked the world in
August 1998 by firing a long-range missile over Japan that
landed in the Pacific Ocean.
On Thursday, US Defense Intelligence Agency director Vice
Admiral Lowell Jacoby told US lawmakers that North Korea is
believed capable of arming a long-range missile that could each
the United States with a nuclear warhead.
North Korea is currently free of international surveillance of
its nuclear activities. It kicked out International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors in December 2002, withdrew from
the NPT the following month and now claims to have made atomic
bombs.
Iran complains of EU ineffectiveness in talks
Iran is showing the strains in the non-proliferation treaty in
another way as the United States claims the Islamic Republic is
secretly developing atomic weapons under the cover of a civilian
nuclear power program that is under IAEA safeguards.
Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, on Sunday
dismissed Washington's concerns over Tehran's nuclear program,
the day after Iran said it was unhappy with the progress of
nuclear negotiations with Britain, France and Germany, and
warned it may resume uranium conversion activities in defiance
of a November agreement.
The European Union, backed by the United States, wants Iran to
halt all nuclear fuel cycle activities. In return, the EU is
offering in talks that began in December a package of trade,
security and technology incentives.
Iran has said repeatedly that its current enrichment suspension
is temporary and voluntary, as it insists on its right under the
NPT to conduct nuclear activities for peaceful purposes.
DW staff / AFP (nda) [de:mehr]
-->
[Info]
Germans Question US Nuclear Weapons
German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder called Thursday for progress
to be made on strengthening disarmament measures -- but an
opposition demand that the US pull its nuclear weapons from
Germany has fallen on deaf ears. (April 29, 2005)
Greens Give Go-Ahead to Defense Project
The last hurdle to Germany’s participation in the "MEADS"
transatlantic missile project has been overcome after the Green
party, the junior partner in government, said it will vote in
favor of the air defense system. (April 19, 2005)
Hundreds of US Nukes Still in Europe
More than a decade after the end of the cold war, the United
States continues to deploy hundreds of nuclear warheads across
Europe, according to a report from a respected US research
agency. (Feb. 10, 2005)
*****************************************************************
58 Tri-City Herald: Vit plant obstacles don't stop progress
This story was published Wednesday, May 4th, 2005
By Jeff St. John, Herald staff writer
Bechtel National's Hanford vitrification plant project, despite
a slowed building schedule and recent layoffs of about 1,000
employees, still is very much under way.
That's what Tri-City community leaders heard Tuesday on a tour
of the 65-acre construction site that eventually will become the
world's largest radioactive waste treatment plant.
Exactly when it might be finished, and how much more than $5.8
billion it may eventually cost, have been thrown somewhat into
question in the past six months. A reassessment of earthquake
risk has forced Bechtel to recalculate design standards for two
buildings that eventually will treat some of the most
radioactive of the waste left from 40 years of plutonium
production at Hanford.
But officials with Bechtel and the Department of Energy assured
visitors Tuesday that delays and layoffs haven't halted work at
the plant, which is expected to turn thousands of gallons of
waste into a stable glass form for permanent disposal.
Instead, the project has pulled back on some construction work
at its High-Level Waste Vitrification Facility and Pretreatment
Facility, the two buildings undergoing design review to make
sure they meet the new seismic standards, said Roy Schepens,
manager of DOE's Office of River Protection.
That's forced Bechtel to lay off construction workers, even
while construction continues full-bore on the project's
Low-Activity Waste Vitrification Facility, the Analytical
Laboratory and more than 20 other smaller buildings, said Jim
Henschel, project manager for Bechtel National.
Since February, Bechtel has announced plans to reduce its
project work force by almost 1,000, including about 650
construction workers and about 350 nonmanual workers, leaving
about 800 union construction workers and about 2,050 nonmanual
workers. Project design is about 70 percent complete, and
construction is about 35 percent complete.
"We won't be able to get as much done as we planned" in the next
year, Henschel said of the current schedule, though he also said
Bechtel doesn't anticipate any more layoffs this year.
What all these changes will do to the long-term costs and
employment trends at the project will be made clearer in two to
four weeks, when DOE and the Army Corps of Engineers finish
reviewing Bechtel's most recent estimate at completion report,
Schepens said.
"We're working through that as we speak," he said. DOE faces a
legal deadline of 2011 to finish the plant, and the Corps
projected last spring that the project was likely to cost closer
to $6.5 billion if finished by the legal deadline.
At the same time, DOE has proposed the project's budget drop
from $690 million this year to $626 million in fiscal year 2006.
Schepens said he's asked for the "appropriate amount of money"
for 2006, but that 2007 will likely need more, when construction
on the two high-level waste buildings will resume "hot and
heavy."
"We're all excited about being part of history here," Schepens
said, standing on the top floor of the Low-Activity Waste
Vitrification Facility as workers lowered a steel beam to be the
first of many to hold up the building's roof. "This plant is the
cornerstone of Hanford cleanup."
© 2005 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
59 ABQjournal: Congress to Hear Update On LANL
Albuquerque Journal newspaper.
Tuesday, May 3, 2005
Albuquerque Journal--> By Adam Rankin
Journal Staff Writer
Less than a week before its government contract competition
officially gets under way, Los Alamos National Laboratory will
again be the focus of a congressional hearing. Lawmakers will
gather in Washington on Thursday to hear testimony about ongoing
management concerns at the weapons lab.
The upcoming hearing will be the fourth since 2003 held by
the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations dedicated to the topic of LANL and its management
under the University of California.
Officials with the Department of Energy's National Nuclear
Security Administration, charged with overseeing the nation's
nuclear programs and their security, are expected to answer
questions and update House Energy and Commerce lawmakers on
improved management and security at the New Mexico weapons lab.
Next week, DOE and NNSA plan to release a final request for
proposals outlining their requirements for the future manager of
LANL.
So far, defense contractors Northrop Grumman and Lockheed
Martin are the only companies that have announced their
intentions to compete for the contract. University of California
officials have said they are preparing as if they will compete,
but a final decision won't come from the school's Board of
Regents until after the final request for proposals is released.
An aide with the subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations said the hearing is meant to be about "routine
oversight" and an update on issues raised during the
subcommittee's March 18 hearing by LANL director Pete Nanos,
NNSA chief Linton Brooks, and DOE's security and safety director
Glenn Podonsky.
At that hearing, Nanos told lawmakers that LANL officials
"identified more than 3,000 issues," ranging from safety
compliance to permitting, that needed to be fixed over the
coming years.
Posters on an independent Web blog started by a lab
employee have predicted in recent weeks that Nanos will soon
resign as lab director. But University of California officials
have said they continue to support Nanos, and lab spokesmen say
such rumors have been floating around for months and are
unsubstantiated.
A witness list for Thursday's hearing has not been
released, but LANL spokesman Kevin Roark said neither Nanos nor
any University of California officials are expected to testify.
LANL has been the focus of congressional scrutiny since
late in 2002 following a series of financial and management
problems. In 2003, DOE announced it planned to put the LANL
contract up for competitive bidding for the first time in its
62-year history when the University of California's contract
ends in September.
LANL's security over classified information was brought
into question last summer, when lab officials announced they
couldn't locate two computer disks that investigations later
concluded never existed.
Copyright Albuquerque Journal
Steve@abqjournal.com
*****************************************************************
60 ABQjournal: Congress to Hear Update On LANL
the Albuquerque Journal newspaper.
Tuesday, May 3, 2005
Albuquerque Journal--> By Adam Rankin
Journal Staff Writer
Less than a week before its government contract competition
officially gets under way, Los Alamos National Laboratory will
again be the focus of a congressional hearing. Lawmakers will
gather in Washington on Thursday to hear testimony about ongoing
management concerns at the weapons lab.
The upcoming hearing will be the fourth since 2003 held by
the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations dedicated to the topic of LANL and its management
under the University of California.
Officials with the Department of Energy's National Nuclear
Security Administration, charged with overseeing the nation's
nuclear programs and their security, are expected to answer
questions and update House Energy and Commerce lawmakers on
improved management and security at the New Mexico weapons lab.
Next week, DOE and NNSA plan to release a final request for
proposals outlining their requirements for the future manager of
LANL.
So far, defense contractors Northrop Grumman and Lockheed
Martin are the only companies that have announced their
intentions to compete for the contract. University of California
officials have said they are preparing as if they will compete,
but a final decision won't come from the school's Board of
Regents until after the final request for proposals is released.
An aide with the subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations said the hearing is meant to be about "routine
oversight" and an update on issues raised during the
subcommittee's March 18 hearing by LANL director Pete Nanos,
NNSA chief Linton Brooks, and DOE's security and safety director
Glenn Podonsky.
At that hearing, Nanos told lawmakers that LANL officials
"identified more than 3,000 issues," ranging from safety
compliance to permitting, that needed to be fixed over the
coming years.
Posters on an independent Web blog started by a lab
employee have predicted in recent weeks that Nanos will soon
resign as lab director. But University of California officials
have said they continue to support Nanos, and lab spokesmen say
such rumors have been floating around for months and are
unsubstantiated.
A witness list for Thursday's hearing has not been
released, but LANL spokesman Kevin Roark said neither Nanos nor
any University of California officials are expected to testify.
LANL has been the focus of congressional scrutiny since
late in 2002 following a series of financial and management
problems. In 2003, DOE announced it planned to put the LANL
contract up for competitive bidding for the first time in its
62-year history when the University of California's contract
ends in September.
LANL's security over classified information was brought
into question last summer, when lab officials announced they
couldn't locate two computer disks that investigations later
concluded never existed.
Copyright Albuquerque Journal
Steve@abqjournal.com
*****************************************************************
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:
*****************************************************************