*****************************************************************
07/18/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.164
*****************************************************************
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 RIA Novosti: Possible embezzlement at Bushehr to be investigated
2 Irna: Asefi: Iran will act quickly if EU makes unacceptable proposal
3 Tima Asia: Seoul's Power Play
4 Korea Herald: Six-way talks likely July 26
5 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: ¡¯Fourth Round Will Be Last Chance for Si
6 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea May Demand More Concessions
7 Indian Express: Singh, Bush press civilian nuclear button
NUCLEAR REACTORS
8 US: [NukeNet] Admiral Rickover: Anniversary/Ongoing Cover Up Of
9 US: USATODAY.com: Former critics see the light
10 US: USATODAY.com: Still dangerous, impractical
11 US: NRC: NRC Staff Issues Confirmatory Orders on Employment Discrimi
12 EU Conferences: Nuclear Energy in Europe 2005
13 Korea Times: NK Tried to Sell Nukes to Taiwan
14 Mos News: Russia May Probe Funding of Iran Nuclear Reactor Following
15 US: NRC: NRC Staff Issues Bulletin to Nuclear Power Plants on Emerge
16 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find
NUCLEAR SECURITY
NUCLEAR SAFETY
17 [du-list] DU - THE DEAD CHILDREN'S SOCIETY.......
18 US: [du-list] Radioactivity Problems at Portsmouth/Paducah
19 [du-list] [ from RadSafe to du-list ] depleted uranium arms
20 [du-list] Appeal to America from Afghan DU & Recovery Fund
21 [du-list] Short report on the ICBUW-panel discussion on DU in
22 US: NRC: NRC to Hold Public Meeting August 2 at Eunice, N. M., to Di
23 US: Leaf Chronicle: Survivors, families have trouble collecting for
24 asahi.com: Mental trauma identified in A-bomb victims
25 US: DOL: Office of Workers' compensation
26 US: Guardian Unlimited Report: Citizens Didn't Get High Radiation
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
27 US: Idaho Nuke story
28 US: Ra226 off site in Piketon, Oho
29 AU ABC: Nuclear research body backs NT waste dump
30 Las Vegas RJ: Titus to run for governor in '06
31 RIA Novosti: Nuclear components storage facility costs $80 million
32 Green Left: Nuke waste dump plan opposed
33 AU ABC: Waste dump plan draws mixed reaction -
34 AU ABC: NSW shires want safety guarantee on nuclear waste route.
35 US: The Signal: Perchlorate Bill Passes House
36 www.GovExec.com: Nuclear Reaction
PEACE
37 asahi.com: Japan must press for a nuclear-free world
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
38 [du-list] DU cylinders: Plant construction falls behind
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 RIA Novosti: Possible embezzlement at Bushehr to be investigated
- Russian Audit Chamber
19/07/2005
MOSCOW, July 18 (RIA Novosti) - The Russian and Iranian supreme
audit institutions will investigate the considerable delay in
the construction of the Bushehr nuclear power plant, the head of
the Russian Audit Chamber said in an interview on national
television.
After his recent trip to Iran, Sergei Stepashin told the Rossiya
TV channel, "My Iranian colleague and I have agreed to carry out
a parallel investigation into why this project has been
delayed."
"We have reached unpleasant conclusions. A certain organization,
Atomstroiexport, was established under the Nuclear Energy
Ministry in 1998. This organization acted as an intermediary.
Then Kakha Bendukidze (a well-known Russian oligarch of Georgian
origin who became the Georgian Economic Minister under President
Mikhail Saakashvili) acquired the company. After that, the state
lost all its positions in the company."
"Iran has many questions for that company," Stepashin said.
Fortunately, it has undergone a change in ownership and now
belongs to Gazprombank. This means that it is a state-run
organization now. Iran also has questions it wants to ask former
Russian minister for nuclear energy Adamov (currently under
arrest in Switzerland on fraud charges brought by the U.S.).
Iran says that several heavily funded programs have never been
implemented."
Stepashin said that Russia was expecting to obtain information
from Iran on this issue. "I think the Russian Prosecutor
General's Office should study this case very carefully," he
added.
The head of the Audit Chamber said that he expected the
multi-billion Bushehr nuclear power plant to be operational by
the end of next year. "This would allow Russia to continue
working in Iran, including in its nuclear market. In the next 80
years, Russia could make about $80-100 billion from its projects
in Iran," Stepashin said.
© 2005 "RIA Novosti"
*****************************************************************
2 Irna: Asefi: Iran will act quickly if EU makes unacceptable proposal -
Tehran, July 18, IRNA
Iran-Europe-Asefi
Iran will act quickly and do what it deems necessary if the
Europeans' offer does not satisfy the country, Foreign Ministry
spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi warned here Monday.
Talking to domestic and foreign reporters at his weekly press
conference, Asefi added, "The conditions are sensitive as the
deadline is approaching.
"I hope the Europeans' proposal will be attractive enough and
officially recognize Iran's right to use nuclear technology for
peaceful purposes, thus helping the negotiations going ahead
smoothly."
Asked about any change in Iran's negotiating team and
Europeans' slow pace and their waiting for the formation of
Iran's upcoming government , he said no big change is made while
rejecting any link between the EU's belated proposal and the
future government.
"Iran attaches great importance to nuclear negotiations and
diplomatic systems will follow up the talks seriously.
"The country's (nuclear) policies will not change by the change
of government."
*****************************************************************
3 Tima Asia: Seoul's Power Play
TIME Asia Magazine: Seoul's Power Play -- Jul. 25, 2005
South Korea's offers to fix the North's electricity woes if Kim
Jong Il gives up his weapons program
BY PETER PARKS—AFP/GETTY IMAGES North Korea’s lights would stay
on longer with the South’s help
Viewpoint: Is Seoul's offer enough?
Monday, Jul. 18, 2005
In North Korea, bright floodlights shine all night on the
monuments to Kim Jong Il and his family. But the rest of the
energy-starved country is lucky to get a few hours of juice a
day. So when South Korean Minister of Unification Chung Dong
Young traveled to Pyongyang last month to outline a secret offer
of massive energy aid, he seemed to have caught the Dear
Leader's attention. If Kim scraps his nuclear weapons program,
Chung told him, South Korea will provide 2 million kilowatts of
electricity each year, nearly doubling the North's power supply.
Making details of the plan public last week, Seoul insisted Kim
had promised to look at the offer "seriously."
Kim hasn't responded yet. But the hope is that his envoys will
do so next week, when six-party talks over North Korea's nuclear
program are expected to reconvene in Beijing after a 13-month
hiatus. Nobody is sure if it's the South Korean offer that has
brought the North back to the bargaining table; nor is it
certain that Kim will accept a deal that could effectively give
Seoul the power to turn off the lights in Pyongyang. More
important, nobody knows if Kim has decided to come back to the
table to negotiate away his nukes, or to extract more
concessions and sidestep the risk of sanctions if he hangs on to
them. "That's the $20,000 question," says Gordon Flake, a North
Korea expert at the Washington, D.C.-based Mansfield Center for
Pacific Affairs.
A crippling energy shortage could be the regime's Achilles heel.
North Korea currently generates 2.3 million kilowatts annually,
about half of what it needs to keep its trains and factories
running and cities lit at night. As much as a third of that is
believed to leak during transmission. Some power equipment is
more than 60 years old. Theft of copper and aluminum
transmission lines for sale as scrap in China is rampant, even
though it's a capital offense. Says Han Young Jin, who worked as
an electrical engineer in Pyongyang before defecting to Seoul in
2002: "The grid is a mess." Seoul estimates that building the
extra generating capacity and lines needed would cost $1.7
billion, but the final price could be many times higher. Turning
on the power could cause the North's dilapidated grid to melt
down, so South Korea might have to rebuild that as well, at a
cost of billions more.
Despite vowing that it wouldn't offer Kim sweeteners to return
to the bargaining table, Washington has reacted with cautious
praise—in Seoul last week, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice called the South Korean plan "a very creative idea." It's
not clear, though, what penalties Kim might face if he doesn't
take the deal, or pushes for more baubles, such as new power
plants. Rice asserted that the North must make "a strategic
decision" to give up its nuclear weapons. But, asks Balbina
Hwang, a North Korea expert at the Heritage Foundation in
Washington, D.C., "What if they have—and their strategic
decision is not to give up their nukes?" In that case, prospects
for settlement of this crisis will remain as dim as the lights
in Kim's benighted kingdom.
—With reporting
by Kim Yooseung
Copyright © 2005 Time Inc. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
4 Korea Herald: Six-way talks likely July 26
The Nation's No.1 English Newspaper
The fourth round of six-party talks in Beijing seeking to end
the North Korean nuclear standoff is likely to begin next
Tuesday but no timetable has been drawn up yet, government
officials said yesterday.
¡°(The member countries) are nearing an agreement to open the
talks on July 26,¡± a high-ranking government official said here
on condition of anonymity.
¡°The (South Korean) government and the United States do not
view this merely as the fourth round of talks but as an
opportunity to draw out a substantial and more concrete
outcome,¡± the official said.
Government sources said China, the host of the talks, suggested
opening the negotiations from Tuesday, and other members did not
object. The talks have been stalemated for 13 months because of
a boycott which North Korea finally decided to end July 9.
The previous rounds of the talks have lasted three to four days
but South Korea for one feels that this next session should be
extended, perhaps even for a month, to ensure progress is made
toward getting the North to dismantle its nuclear weapons
program.
The six-nation talks between the Koreas, United States, China,
Japan and Russia began August 2003 to tackle North Korea¡¯s
nuclear weapons ambitions.
President Roh Moo-hyun met visiting former U.S. Secretary of
State Colin Powell yesterday at Cheong Wa Dae and said ¡°the
United States holds the ultimate key¡± to solving the nuclear
issue.
Powell praised South Korea¡¯s role in seeking a breakthrough (in
the deadlocked talks) by offering energy and food aid to the
impoverished North.
Both were pleased the talks are reopening and shared an
understanding it was time for a solution, Cheong Wa Dae
officials said.
Representatives from the six nations will arrive in Beijing on
Monday and hold pre- bilateral or trilateral meetings before the
main sessions begin, the sources said.
While no decision has been made regarding the duration of the
talks, members agree this round needs to come up with a
breakthrough on the nuclear standoff, regardless of the time.
South Korea originally considered suggesting a month-long period
for the talks and opening sub-committees within the framework
for more in-depth discussion.
With only a week left before the negotiations reopen after the
13-month hiatus, member countries are moving fast to complete
their preparations.
South Korea¡¯s top negotiator, Deputy Foreign Minister Song
Min-soon, returns today from a weekend trip to China and Russia.
Song¡¯s separate discussions with his counterparts ? Chinese
Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei and Russian Deputy Foreign
Minister Alexander Alexeyev ? focused on the date-setting and
period of the talks, as well as method and contents.
China¡¯s councilor Tang Jiaxuan visited North Korea last week
and met communist leader Kim Jong-il.
The talks, when resumed, are likely to undergo a makeover as all
members feel the past methodology of reiterating positions in a
gathering of some 100 participants at a plenary session is
inefficient, government sources said.
The negotiations will focus initially on North Korea¡¯s response
to South Korea¡¯s extensive electricity supply offer in return
for nuclear dismantlement, before going on to demands and offers
made by other member states during the third round of talks.
The main agenda will continue to be North Korea¡¯s nuclear
dismantlement and the consequent energy support and multilateral
security assurance.
Issues such as Washington¡¯s disapproval of the North Korean
human rights situation and North Korea¡¯s abduction of Japanese
in the 1980s to train as spies are also likely to be broached at
bilateral meetings on the sidelines of the talks.
(angiely@heraldm.com)
By Lee Joo-hee
2005.07.19
*****************************************************************
5 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: ¡¯Fourth Round Will Be Last Chance for Six-Party Talks¡¯
> Updated July.18,2005 19:27 KST
Washington has told Seoul and Tokyo it will end six-party
talks on North Korea¡¯s nuclear program if the fourth round
scheduled to start in Beijing next week produces no results,
Japan¡¯s Asahi Shimbun reported Monday.
Quoting sources connected to the talks, the paper said the U.S.
revealed the position in discussions of the three countries¡¯
chief negotiators in Seoul on Thursday.
The paper said the three countries plan to keep the next round
going until progress is made. They are looking at repeated bouts
of intense negotiations interspersed with 10-14 day breaks,
according to the daily. If that still produces no results,
Washington will declare the six-party negotiations over and
apply pressure. The paper said South Korea and Japan agreed
concrete progress was needed in the next round.
A South Korean government official said U.S. Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice hinted at a deadline for a resolution of the
dispute by the end of the year when she visited Seoul, Tokyo and
Beijing earlier this month. He said Washington had no intention
of getting embroiled in fruitless marathon talks, but neither
did it plan to let North Korea off easily given how hard the
parties had to work to get it back to the talks. He said if
there was no end in sight by the end of the year, the U.S. could
ask talk partners China, Russia, South Korea and Japan to get
tough on Pyongyang.
(englishnews@chosun.com )
*****************************************************************
6 Guardian Unlimited: North Korea May Demand More Concessions
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday July 18, 2005 7:46 AM
By BO-MI LIM
Associated Press Writer
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - It could be called electro-diplomacy -
an offer by South Korea to double North Korea's electricity
supply if it gives up its nuclear weapons program.
The United States likes the idea, but analysts here are warning
that North Korea may be leery of having to depend on its
neighbor's power. It would run counter to North Korea's national
ideology of juche, or self-reliance, promulgated by Kim Il Sung,
the founder of the communist state and father of its current
leader Kim Jong Il.
The proposal, made directly to Kim Jong Il last month in
Pyongyang and announced by South Korea last week, is believed to
have been instrumental in luring North Korea back to six-nation
negotiations starting the week of July 25, ending a 13-month
boycott.
Seoul said it offered to provide 2 million kilowatts of
electricity northward if Pyongyang agreed at the disarmament
talks to give up its nuclear program.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice praised the idea, saying:
``It can be clear to anyone who looks at photographs of what
North Korea looks like at night that they have energy needs.''
In satellite photographs, the northern half of the peninsula is
almost entirely dark, while the south is ablaze with lights.
Blackouts are common even in the capital, Pyongyang, and the
latest South Korean government statistics, from 2003, say North
Korea could generate less than 30 percent of its total capacity
of 7.8 million kilowatts.
South Korean power would be ``a significant aid'' to the
impoverished North, said Kim Young-yoon, a senior research
fellow at the Korea Institute for National Unification.
But ``North Korea would live in constant fear that electricity
may be cut off suddenly,'' Kim said. ``They would demand that
the South build power plants for them to disperse this fear.''
An official at South Korea's National Security Council, speaking
on condition of anonymity, suggested that was unlikely except in
case of war.
If North Korea wants a secure supply of energy, it would have to
maintain stable relations with South Korea, said Ko Yu-hwan,
professor of North Korean studies at Dongguk University.
``North Korea would want nuclear reactors as well in the end,''
Ko said. ``It is very likely the North would demand the South
provide electricity until the nuclear reactors are built.''
Under the aid plan, South Korea would string power lines across
the heavily armed border that divides the two nations and
upgrade North Korea's aging electricity infrastructure.
The 2 million kilowatts on offer is only 14 percent of South
Korea's expected surplus electricity in 2008, when it would
start delivering power. South Korea already supplies electricity
to a joint-venture industrial park in Kaesong, just north of the
mine-strewn border.
The South Korean government plans to finance the project with
the $2.4 billion left from the budget initially earmarked for
two proliferation-free nuclear reactors that were to be built
under a 1994 deal between Washington and Pyongyang that ended
the first nuclear crisis. The project has stalled since the
latest crisis broke out in late 2002, when U.S. officials
accused North Korea of running a secret uranium enrichment
program.
Kim Jong Il promised to respond to the offer ``after carefully
studying it,'' South Korean Unification Minister Chung
Dong-young said.
But South Korea's Chosun Ilbo daily questioned the wisdom of
making such an offer before the disarmament talks have even
resumed.
``If we have used up our last best negotiating card as a mere
invite to the next round of talks, we may well find ourselves
suckered when the talks actually get under way and end up paying
even more than we already volunteered,'' it editorialized last
week.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
7 Indian Express: Singh, Bush press civilian nuclear button
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
US buries its pokharan ghost: Roadmap signed for India’s entry
into nuclear order; US to work on laws, treaties
C. RAJA MOHAN
WASHINGTON, JULY 18: In an unprecedented grand bargain that
promises to end India’s longstanding nuclear isolation, Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh and President George W. Bush hammered out
today an arrangement to resume civilian nuclear energy
cooperation that could include the supply of nuclear fuel to the
Tarapur reactors.
The breakthrough, which India has sought for so long, lays down a
road map for India’s integration with the global nuclear order as
a full fledged nuclear weapon state.
When completed in a phased manner, the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal,
negotiated over the last few weeks, will amount to the first
formal restructuring of the nuclear non-proliferation regime in
the last thirty years to accommodate a new nuclear weapon power.
While the US has agreed to recognise the reality of India’s
nuclear weapons, Delhi in turn has agreed to undertake the
obligations and best practices that go with being a “responsible
nuclear weapon power”.
This new understanding will be implemented in a phased manner by
a new joint working group in the next few months.
GEORGE W BUSH
• SAFER WORLD: Charting new steps in our Defence relationship,
working together on counter-terrorism to help protect our people
• NSSP COMPLETE: Committed to increasing prosperity of the
people of India and America. Today, we mark completion of NSSP
• COUNTING ON INDIA, PAK: This problem (of the LoC) will be
solved by India and Pakistan. We will encourage leaders from
both sides to work in good faith
MANMOHAN SINGH
• TERROR? ZERO TOLERANCE: There can be no cause that justifies
killing of defenceless civilians. There must be international
norms for zero tolerance for terrorism
• VALUE US HELP: India’s economic growth has strong support of
the US and this means a lot
The Joint statement says that “Bush conveyed his appreciation”
over “India’s strong commitment to preventing WMD proliferation
and stated that as a responsible state with advanced nuclear
technology, India should acquire the same benefits and
advantages as other such states”.
The reference to India as “a state with advanced nuclear
technology” is the diplomatese for the US accepting India as a
nuclear weapon state. The statement commits Bush “to work to
achieve full civil nuclear energy cooperation with India as it
realises its goals” of promoting energy security.
In pursuit of this objective, Bush would “seek agreement from
Congress to adjust US laws and policies, and the United States
will work with friends and allies to adjust international
regimes to enable full civil nuclear energy cooperation and
trade with India, including but not limited to expeditious
consideration of fuel supplies for safeguarded nuclear reactors
at Tarapur”.
In return for this unprecedented commitment from the United
States , India promises, according to the joint statement, “to
assume the same responsibilities and practices and acquire the
same benefits and advantages of other leading countries with
advanced nuclear technology (read nuclear weapon states) such as
the United States.
These responsibilities will consist of “identifying and
separating civilian and military nuclear facilities and
programmes in a phased manner”, placing its civilian nuclear
facilities “under IAEA safeguards”, “negotiating an additional
protocol” with the IAEA, continue the moratorium on nuclear
testing, work with the US for a fissile materials cut off treaty
and maintain responsible export controls.
Putting together this grand bargain was not easy. It involved
the application of resolute political will on the part of Bush
and Singh, both of whom had complex international negotiations
to do as they approached a deal that has been elusive for so
long.
Well into the early hours of Monday morning, the tension among
the negotiators, much like the oppressive humidity in Washington
last few days, could be cut with a knife.
The morning brought yet another day of Indian summer in
Washington. As Bush and the first lady Laura Bush stepped out to
receive Singh amidst impressive pageantry in the South Lawn of
the White House, a gentle breeze began to offer some relief from
the heat.
At the welcoming ceremony, Bush and Singh signaled that they
were entering the talks amidst optimism. By the time they came
out to address the gathered press in the East Room of the White
House two hours later, the nuclear deal appeared done; well
almost.
Why this is the Grand
Nuclear Bargain
• When completed, nuclear deal will be first formal
restructuring of non-proliferation regime in last 30 years to
accommodate a new n-weapon power
• Bush will “seek agreement from Congress to adjust US laws and
policies,’’ and work with friends, allies to adjust
international regimes to enable full n-energy cooperation and
trade with India, including but not limited to...fuel supplies
for safeguarded nuclear reactors at Tarapur”
• India’s responsibilities: “identifying and separating
civilian, military nuclear facilities and programmes in a phased
manner”, placing civilian nuclear facilities “under IAEA
safeguards”, continue the moratorium on nuclear testing, work
with the US for a fissile materials cut off treaty and maintain
responsible export controls.
Seated next to each other in the East Room, National Security
Adviser M K Narayanan and US Under Secretary of State Nicholas
Burns were still poring over a hand-written sheet.
While the bureaucrats sorted out the remaining wrinkles in the
joint statement, the two leaders emphasised that as far they
were concerned the deal was final.
An hour after the two leaders ended their press conference,
Burns was telling American journalists that the delay in issuing
the joint statement was “not a substantive hold up”. Pointing to
the complexity of the nuclear negotiations over the weekend and
today, Burns said, “we literally have just made some last minute
changes in the text”.
On his part, Bush said the completion of the “Next Steps in
Strategic Partnership” initiative launched in January 2004 will
“further enhance our cooperation in the area of civil nuclear,
civil space and high technology commerce”.
Referring to the Joint Statement, Singh said the nuclear issue
“has been addressed in a manner which gives me great
satisfaction”. He also thanked Bush “for his personal role and
interest in facilitating a solution to the complex problem”.
While Singh had some important judgement calls to make in
clinching the nuclear deal with the United States, his
negotiators worked hard to produce that deal in the last few
days.
External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh’s conversations with US
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice played a key part in sorting
out the differences among the officials of the two sides.
Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran and Indian Ambassador to the
United States Ronnen Sen, Atomic Energy Commission chairman Anil
Kakodkar had to bring in all their negotiating skill to clinch
the historic nuclear deal with the United States.
© 2005: Indian Express Newspapers (Mumbai) Ltd.
*****************************************************************
8 [NukeNet] Admiral Rickover: Anniversary/Ongoing Cover Up Of
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:45:13 -0700
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
He [my father-in-law] said that the report, if
published in its entirety, would have destroyed
the civilian nuclear power industry
http://www.mothersalert.org/rickover.html More
On Cover Up Below:
http://www.mothersalert.org/bertell.html [ Dr
Bertell's Signed, Not. Statement]
http://www.mothersalert.org/blanche.html
[Statement From Nuclear Engineer Of The Year Paul
Blanch]
Admiral Rickover's Statement
The following statement was signed by Jane
Rickover, daughter-in-law of Admiral Hyman
Rickover, "father" of the nuclear navy. It was
notorized by William Lamson July 18, 1986. Jane
Rickover has verified the authenticity of the
document and the events described in it.
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
"In May, 1983, my father-in-law, Admiral Hyman G.
Rickover, told me that at the time of the Three
Mile Island nuclear reactor accident, a full
report was commissioned by by President Jimmy
Carter. He [my father-in-law] said that the
report, if published in its entirety, would have
destroyed the civilian nuclear power industry
because the accident at Three Mile Island was
infinitely more dangerous than was ever made
public. he told me that he had used his enormous
personal influence with President Carter to
persuade him to publish the report only in a
highly "diluted" form. The President himself had
originally wished the full report to be made
public.
In November, 1985, my father-in-law told me that
he had come to deeply regret his action in
persuading President Carter to suppress the most
alarming aspects of that report.
[Signed] Jane Rickover
Jane Rickover appeared before me and swore as to
the truth of the
above statement.
Dated at Toronto this 18th day of July A.D. 1986
[Signed] William F. Lamson
William F. Lamson Q.C.
Notary Public for the Province of
Ontario
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Mothers' Alert Home | More Information | Actions |
News
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
9 USATODAY.com: Former critics see the light
Posted 7/17/2005 8:33 PM
Former critics see the lightThe nuclear power industry has some
surprising new friends: environmentalists.
Longtime opponents, including Senate Democratic leader Harry
Reid of Nevada, have done an about-face, and that might be
enough to revive the nuclear industry after a quarter-century
hiatus.
No nuclear plant has been built in the USA since 1979, when the
accident at the Three Mile Island reactor in Pennsylvania made
the nation fearful of nuclear energy. Those fears were further
stoked in 1986 by the meltdown at Chernobyl in the then-Soviet
Union.
Plant design has improved since, as have operational standards.
At the same time, U.S. energy demands have grown and are
expected to increase 50% over the next 20 years. That squeeze
has led former critics to conclude that nuclear energy, if
unappealing, is better than any other option.
The facts are straightforward: Nuclear power, which produces 20%
of the nation's electricity, creates virtually none of the
pollution that causes climate change and delivers electricity
cheaper than other forms of generation do. The primary
alternatives are coal-fired plants, which account for half the
nation's electricity but emit pollutants, or plants powered by
natural gas, which has doubled in price since 1999. New
technologies, while promising, are not yet capable of meeting
the expected need.
In the most significant indication of the way sentiment has
shifted, energy bills in both houses of Congress encourage
investment and would renew federally backed insurance for the
industry. Under the Senate bill, new nuclear plants could
qualify for loan guarantees and tax credits. Similar incentives
are provided for renewable energy sources, such as geothermal,
wind and biomass.
The incentives are needed, at least briefly, to jump-start
construction. Without government stimulus, no reactors would be
built for 20 more years, the Energy Department says. With it,
industry leaders say, two existing consortiums might soon apply
for a construction permit.
Even so, two other issues still raise concerns. One is an old
one: What to do with nuclear waste? The other is new: How to
protect against terrorism?
The industry has had more success addressing the latter. Since
9/11, plant security personnel has increased from 5,000 to
8,000, and even a direct hit by a large commercial aircraft is
unlikely to have severe radiological consequences, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission says. Were there to be a problem, caused
by terrorism or error, phone lines link the NRC to control
rooms.
There still is no definitive plan to deal with 52,000 tons of
radioactive waste, most of it stored at the plants. A planned
permanent storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada won't
open until at least 2012, and it still faces challenges after
decades of debate.
That debate needs to end. Yucca Mountain is the only viable
storage site.
Twenty-six years after Three Mile Island, it's time for the
nation to update its thinking about nuclear energy. If more
reliable and cleaner energy is the goal, nuclear power has to be
part of the solution.
© Copyright 2005 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
*****************************************************************
10 USATODAY.com: Still dangerous, impractical
Editorial/Opinion
Posted 7/17/2005 8:37 PM
By Michael Mariotte
Without a single
viable reactor order since October 1973, the nuclear power
industry has been moribund for decades. Left to market forces
and public opinion, nuclear power would continue on its deserved
road to oblivion. And nothing has changed to make nuclear power
more attractive:
" It continues to be the most dangerous method ever devised to
produce electricity.
" A scientifically defensible radioactive waste program
continues to elude the United States and every other nuclear
nation.
" Building more nuclear reactors would simply add tempting new
terrorist targets across the country.
Donating billions of taxpayer dollars to the nuclear industry
already the most heavily subsidized energy industry over the
past 50 years would provide further confirmation that private
investment already has rejected this obsolete technology. If
nuclear power, a mature technology by any definition, cannot
make it on its own, why should taxpayers have to shoulder a
burden that Wall Street has spurned?
Nuclear power's possible role in addressing climate change has
been vastly overstated. The nuclear fuel chain is not free of
greenhouse gas emissions and, according to several studies, to
make even a modest difference in emissions (a 20% or so
reduction) would require a nuclear program of incredible
magnitude: in the United States alone the construction of some
300 new reactors.
If we started today, that would be one every two months for the
next 50 years at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars,
increased risk of meltdown and the need for several new Yucca
Mountain-size radioactive waste sites and proliferation-prone
uranium enrichment plants. It's an impossible, and undesirable,
task and could not be accomplished in time to prevent global
warming.
Diverting our resources to nuclear power now would only prevent
the deployment of those underfunded energy technologies that
really can make a difference at far less cost, such as improved
energy efficiency, wind, solar, non-nuclear hydrogen and better
electrical transmission systems.
The issue is not whether we should use nuclear power to address
climate change: the choice is to use nuclear power or address
climate change. The Earth demands that we choose the latter
course.
Michael Mariotte is executive director of Nuclear Information
and Resource Service, an anti-nuclear power group. Nuclear
power, still dangerous7/17/2005 8:37 PMBy Michael Mariotte-->
© Copyright 2005 USA TODAY, a division of
*****************************************************************
11 NRC: NRC Staff Issues Confirmatory Orders on Employment Discrimination by Food Service
Contractor at Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant
News Release - Region III - 2005-03 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region III 801 Warrenville
Road, Lisle IL 60532 No. III-05-033 July 18, 2005
CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 Viktoria Mitlyng (630)
829-9662 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued Confirmatory Orders
to FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. and to a food service
contractor at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant as a result of
employment discrimination against three food service workers in
2002. The Davis-Besse plant, operated by FirstEnergy, is located
near Oak Harbor, Ohio.
Investigations last year by the NRC Office of Investigations
found that AVI Food Systems, Inc., of Warren, Ohio, threatened
three employees with termination when they reported concerns
about the fitness for work by a fellow food service employee.
The workers reported they were concerned that the individuals
performance was affected by a prescription drug taken by the
individual.
NRC regulations prohibit discrimination against employees at
nuclear facilities who raise safety issues, including the
fitness for duty of workers.
The investigation findings were the subject of the NRCs
alternative dispute resolution process which provides, at the
request of the parties involved, an opportunity to resolve
issues before a neutral mediator. Representatives of the NRC
staff, FirstEnergy, and AVI Food Systems met May 11 with a
professional mediator, arranged through Cornell Universitys
Institute on Conflict Resolution.
That discussion led to the agreement by FirstEnergy to upgrade
the training of its contractor personnel to include a discussion
of NRC employee protection requirements and maintaining a safety
conscious work environment where safety issues may be raised
without concern for discrimination. The utility will also
include contractor personnel in its annual surveys of nuclear
plant workers to evaluate the work environment and willingness
to raise safety issues.
Similarly, AVI Food Systems agreed to provide training to all
its workers at NRC-licensed facilities covering NRC employee
protection requirements and provisions for maintaining a safety
conscious work environment.
The commitments by FirstEnergy and AVI Food Systems are
documented in the Confirmatory Orders. The FirstEnergy Order
applies to all three of its nuclear facilities - Davis-Besse and
Perry in Ohio, and Beaver Valley in Pennsylvania . The AVI Food
Systems order applies to any of its operations at nuclear
facilities licensed by the NRC.
Copies of the Confirmatory Orders are available from the NRC
Region III Office of Public Affairs and will be posted on the
NRC web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/regulatory/enforcement/current.html
.
Last revised Monday, July 18, 2005
*****************************************************************
12 EU Conferences: Nuclear Energy in Europe 2005
17/10/2005 - 18/10/2005 - The Hotel HUSA President Park,
Brussels
Agenda | Speakers | Workshop | Brochure | Venue | Supporters |
Event Enrolment
The conference will discuss the most pressing issues with
advocates from all sides of the debate over the future of
nuclear energy. The first day of the conference will focus on
this debate, and will attempt to provide a balanced picture of
the various arguments connected with nuclear energy. The second
day will feature a more practical focus in light of the fact
that, regardless of whether nuclear programmes in Europe are to
be renewed, in is essential that we manage our current nuclear
legacy safely and with respect to health and the environment.
The second day of the conference will therefore examine the
current answers and best practices to questions regarding
safety, security, waste, and public dialogue and accountability.
Finally, the closing session of the conference will feature a
brief assessment of several of the latest nuclear energy
technologies.
Why does nuclear energy concern me?
Global energy demand is set to rise substantially during the
21st century, as countries in the developed world continue to
increase their electricity usage in order to sustain standards
of living, whilst those in the developing world seek to improve
theirs. However, at the same time as the level of demand for
electricity is increasing, the use of fossil fuel based energy
production is being recognised as a major cause of damage to the
environment. The release of greenhouse gases from the burning of
coal, oil and gas in power stations is seen as a major
contributor to the process of global warming. The continued
exploitation of fossil fuels and release of carbon dioxide will
need to be controlled in the coming decades.
Following a prolonged period in the cold, there is a growing
consensus that there should be a detailed reassessment of the
role that nuclear power has to play in Europe’s energy mix. The
future of nuclear power in Europe has been severely threatened
over the past two decades, largely as a result of the fallout
from the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. However, the fact that
nuclear energy produces next to no CO2 emissions, coupled with
developments in technology and worries over the increasing cost
and uncertainty of oil and gas supplies, are gradually
transforming nuclear power into a more attractive prospect
again.
It is argued by many proponents of nuclear energy that the
health and safety concerns raised in the past were exaggerated
or unfounded, and that nuclear power is, in fact, one of the
safest forms of energy production presently available. These
same people argue that renewable forms of energy have also
failed to deliver on their early promise and, although they are
clearly part of the long-term solution, wind, solar and hydro
power among others remain some distance from being in a position
to supply the energy levels today’s world requires. Europe needs
to find a way to meet rising energy demand at the same time as
meeting targets on the reduction of harmful emissions and
securing a stable and sustainable energy supply, which is not
excessively subject to extreme price or availability
fluctuations.
Proponents of nuclear power advocate that it is the obvious,
clean and already available solution to this problem. However,
many others disagree and there are still big questions ahead,
particularly with regard to safety, security, waste, and weapons
proliferation. These questions will need satisfactory answers
before nuclear energy could be accepted on a global scale as the
solution to our energy needs.
Who should attend?
The future role of nuclear energy in Europe is a topic that
should be of great relevance to anyone interested in
understanding the issues surrounding energy production and
supply, environmental issues and strategies to combat climate
change and global warming. In particular, it will be of
particular relevance to companies, corporations and NGOs active
in the energy sector; governments seeking to look into the
possibilities of nuclear power; the environmental sector seeking
to consider the effects of, and strategies to tackle, climate
change and global warming; those in academic or research
positions to whom energy, nuclear power, or the environment are
relevant issues; or any businesses or individuals wanting to
know the facts behind their electricity bill. The event will be
of critical interest to power companies concerned by the
instability of the current situation and seeking to examine the
potential of all methods of electricity production.
What will I get from this?
EU Conferences has assembled a line-up of top-level speakers
from the fields of politics, industry, the environment,
lobbying, and academia, as well as some of the most respected
analysts currently working in the energy field. Using a mixture
of speeches, presentations, case-studies and discussions, the
conference will aim to comprehensively cover all the issues
surrounding nuclear power and its future status in European
energy generation. There will be a political section, examining
the current climate towards nuclear energy in European
institutions and a look at the finance implications of the
nuclear industry. The conference will also feature sections
debating the environmental impacts (beneficial and detrimental)
of using nuclear technologies to generate electricity; looking
at the problems of safety, security, waste, public perception
and accountability and possible methods to deal with them; and
finally a look at advanced designs for nuclear reactors, which
may cut down on the costs, risks and size of nuclear energy
generation – thus making it a more attractive prospect.
Networking time will also be scheduled into the agenda, and the
conference is an excellent opportunity to forge new business
links as you interact with peers.
Please Contact:
Graeme Francis on +44 (0)1495 300014 or .
Correct as of 03.06.05
Featured Speaker
Mr. Christian Waeterloos
Mr. Waeterloos is Director of Nuclear Energy at the European
Commission, within the Directorate-General Energy and Transport
(DG TREN). He is based in Luxembourg. Mr. Waeterloos is also
Acting Director General of the Euratom Supply Agency.
Event: Nuclear Energy in Europe 2005
Tuesday, 19 July 2005
EU Conferences Launches New Website
EU Conferences are proud to announce the launch of a new
improved website! The website will offer much greater
flexibility, easier online registration for events and enables
us to communicate much better with our customers.
More info New Pricing Policy
As a result of the increased number of conferences that we are
producing this year, we are now able to offer delegates even
better value for money with a new improved pricing scheme for
our events.
© 2005 EU Conferences Ltd All rights reserved
*****************************************************************
13 Korea Times: NK Tried to Sell Nukes to Taiwan
Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation
By Park Song-wu Staff Reporter
A North Korean parliamentarian allegedly visited Taiwan to
``sell¡¯¡¯ missiles made in North Korea, a monthly magazine in
Seoul reported in its August edition.
South Korea¡¯s intelligence agency is investigating the
parliamentarian, who recently defected to South Korea, the
Monthly Chosun reported.
The National Intelligence Service (NIS) told The Korea Times
that it can¡¯t confirm whether the lawmaker from Pyongyang¡¯s
lubber-stamp parliament is under its probe in South Korea.
``I can¡¯t say whether (the parliamentarian) has entered (South
Korea) or not,¡¯¡¯ an NIS official said. ``I can¡¯t go into
detail either for the safety of (the parliamentarian¡¯s) family
members in North Korea.¡¯¡¯
But the official, who declined to be named, didn¡¯t deny the
news story.
The magazine reported that the parliamentarian¡¯s visit to
Taiwan was designed to market North Korean missiles. It is not
clear whether the North Korean had targeted Taiwan as purchaser
or just had meetings with other nationals in Taiwan.
If Taiwan made a contact with North Korea for a missile deal,
it might have wanted to put China in check and better its
relationship with North Korea, Yu Suk-ryul, an emeritus
professor of the Institute of Foreign Affairs and National
Security, said in a telephone interview.
``It is surprising news as North Korea has usually tried to
sell missiles in the Middle East,¡¯¡¯ he said. ``If Taiwan
accepted such a meeting to be held in its territory, or acted as
an intermediary, it might have wanted to put a break on China¡¯s
North Korea policies.¡¯¡¯
China and Taiwan maintain bitter relations as the mainland
considers Taiwan as part of its territory under a ``One
China¡¯¡¯ policy.
The parliamentarian also testified that North Korea
manufactured a 1-ton nuclear bomb by using 4 kilograms of
plutonium and is trying to develop lighter warheads, the monthly
quoted intelligence officials as saying.
North Korean scientists reported to their leader, Kim Jong-il,
that they have successfully produced the plutonium bomb, but
they have doubts about its performance, according to the monthly.
``North Korea is trying to develop a 500-kg small-size warhead
because it¡¯s not sure whether the (1-ton) large-size bomb would
detonate in actual warfare,¡¯¡¯ the parliamentarian reportedly
told NIS officials.
The parliamentarian allegedly told NIS officials that North
Korea is developing ``special weapons¡¯¡¯ for 30,000-strong
special forces as well as small submarines and military uniforms
that can evade radar tracking.
It would be the first time for a North Korean parliamentarian
to seek asylum in South Korea if the refugee is confirmed to be
a member of Pyongyang¡¯s Supreme People¡¯s Assembly.
North Korea named 687 delegates in its 11th election in August
2003.
The Monthly Chosun reported that the North Korean was
concurrently working as a researcher at the Maritime Industry
Institute, which is in charge of developing and marketing
weapons.
The parliamentarian would also be the second highest North
Korean official to defect to South Korea, following Hwang
Jang-yop, who sought asylum at the South Korean Consulate in
Beijing in 1997.
im@koreatimes.co.kr 07-18-2005 19:26
*****************************************************************
14 Mos News: Russia May Probe Funding of Iran Nuclear Reactor Following
Ex-Minister’s Arrest
— Media - NEWS - MOSNEWS.COM
Russia’s former atomic energy minister Yevgeny Adamov, photo
from Novaya Gazeta daily
Russia May Probe Funding of Iran Nuclear Reactor Following
Ex-Minister’s Arrest — Media
Created: 18.07.2005 11:46 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 11:46 MSK
MosNews
Russian prosecutors may examine the financing of a nuclear
reactor Moscow is building in Iran after a former Russian
minister was arrested, local media quoted the head of Russia’s
Audit Chamber as saying on Sunday.
Sergei Stepashin said any investigation might look at the
activities of former atomic energy minister Yevgeny Adamov, who
was arrested in Switzerland in May after a request from the
United States, which wants to try him for fraud, the Reuters
news agency reported.
“We are waiting for material from Iranian colleagues in the near
future; we will study it carefully along with our specialists at
the Atomic Energy Ministry, and I think it is a serious job for
the prosecutor general,” the Interfax news agency quoted
Stepashin as saying in a television interview.
Adamov’s term as minister was marked by his resolve to push
ahead with construction of Iran’s first nuclear power plant near
the southern city of Bushehr.
Washington says Tehran could use the plant to make an atom bomb
—- something Russia and Iran have always denied.
Stepashin said Adamov’s role might be looked at because in 1998
the Atomic Energy Ministry —- of which he was then head —-
founded an organization called Atomstroiexport which dealt with
the financing of Bushehr, Interfax reported. Stepashin said he
had recently been to Iran to look at why there had been so many
delays in the building of Bushehr.
“We came to some conclusions that were not very pleasant to us,”
he was quoted as saying, without elaboration.
Adamov was a minister under President Boris Yeltsin but was
ousted by Vladimir Putin, who came to power in 2000 promising to
fight corruption, after a probe into his ties to Russian
businessmen. He has not denied he put money into private
accounts but has said this was a normal practice in Russia to
shield money from hyperinflation, an unstable banking system and
corruption that was rife after the collapse of communism.
Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM
*****************************************************************
15 NRC: NRC Staff Issues Bulletin to Nuclear Power Plants on Emergency Preparedness for
Security-Based Events
News Release - 2005-10
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200
Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail:
No. 05-102 July 18, 2005
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has issued a Bulletin to
companies licensed to operate commercial nuclear reactors in the
United States requesting information on several components of
their emergency preparedness programs.
Several NRC studies show the existing emergency planning basis
can successfully deal with events, including those dealing with
security, at nuclear power plants. The agency recognizes,
however, that security-based incidents present issues, such as
the need to relay information and protect plant personnel, where
enhancements to emergency planning could be made. The Bulletin
asks reactor operators for information on their emergency
preparedness planning, procedures and training to be cognizant
of what enhancements are planned or have been made.
The NRC remains assured that security-based events at a nuclear
power plant that could damage important equipment are very
unlikely, and even if those events occur, existing emergency
plans can effectively address the possible effects, said Bruce
Boger, Director of the Division of Inspection Program Management
in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. While emergency
planning already includes flexibility for responding to a wide
range of events, enhancements for security-related events may be
prudent.
Some of the areas covered by the Bulletin include emergency
classifications, NRC notifications, onsite protective actions
and onsite response organization augmentation. For instance, a
plant could notify the NRC more quickly of security-related
events, allowing the NRC to pass the information to other plants
and Federal agencies. Also, a plants actions for protecting its
onsite staff might be revised to address possible hazards during
a potential or in-progress security breach.
The Bulletin requests licensees to provide a written response by
Aug. 17 on several areas, including:
-- a summary discussion of any planned changes to emergency
classification levels, as well as a schedule for implementing
the changes, and;
-- summary discussions of programs (and any changes) for NRC
notification, onsite protective actions, onsite response
organization augmentation and drills and exercises.
Bulletin 2005-02, Emergency Preparedness and Response Actions
for Security-Based Events, will be available on the NRC web site
at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/gen-comm/bulletins/
2005/.
Last revised Monday, July 18, 2005
*****************************************************************
16 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding
FR Doc 05-14026
[Federal Register: July 18, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 136)]
[Notices] [Page 41241-41242] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr18jy05-82]
of No Significant Impact for Exemption From Certain NRC Licensing
Requirements for Special Nuclear Material for Envirocare of Utah,
Inc.
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Park, Environmental and
Performance Assessment Directorate, Division of Waste Management
and Environmental Protection, Office of Nuclear Material Safety
and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555. Telephone: (301) 415-5835; fax number: (301) 415-5397;
e-mail: jrp@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an Order
pursuant to section 274f of the Atomic Energy Act that would
modify an existing Order for Envirocare of Utah, Inc.
(Envirocare). The existing order exempts Envirocare from certain
NRC regulations and permits Envirocare, under specified
conditions, to possess waste containing special nuclear material
(SNM), in greater quantities than those specified in 10 CFR part
150, at Envirocare's low-level waste (LLW) disposal facility
located in Clive, Utah, without obtaining an NRC license pursuant
to 10 CFR part 70. The NRC has prepared an Environmental
Assessment (EA) in support of this action in accordance with the
requirements of 10 CFR part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC has
concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is
appropriate. The modified Order will be issued following the
publication of this notice.
II. Environmental Assessment Background The NRC is considering
issuance of an Order pursuant to section 274f of the Atomic
Energy Act that would modify an existing Order for Envirocare.
The existing order exempts Envirocare from certain NRC
regulations and permits Envirocare, under specified conditions,
to possess waste containing SNM, in greater quantities than those
specified in 10 CFR part 150, at Envirocare's LLW disposal
facility located in Clive, Utah, without obtaining an NRC license
pursuant to 10 CFR part 70. Published in the Federal Register on
May 21, 1999 (64 FR 27826), the original Order was modified
subsequently on January 30, 2003, at the request of Envirocare
and published in the Federal Register on February 13, 2003 (68 FR
7399).
Envirocare is licensed by the State of Utah, an NRC Agreement
State, under a 10 CFR part 61 equivalent license for the disposal
of LLW. Envirocare also is licensed by Utah to dispose of mixed
waste, hazardous waste, and 11e.(2) byproduct material (as
defined under section 11e.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended). By letter dated July 8, 2003, Envirocare proposed
that the NRC amend the January 30, 2003, Order. The NRC staff has
evaluated this request in two phases. In the first phase, the NRC
staff evaluated the following requested revisions: (1) Modify the
table in Condition 1 to include limits for uranium and plutonium
in waste without magnesium oxide; (2) modify the units of the
table from picocuries of SNM per gram of waste material to gram
of SNM per gram of waste material; and (3) revise the language of
Condition 5 to be consistent with the revised units in the table
in Condition 1. The NRC staff approved these revisions and
published a modified Order in the Federal Register on December
29, 2003 (68 FR 74986). In the second phase, which is the subject
of this EA, the NRC staff has evaluated the remaining revisions
requested by Envirocare (the proposed action).
Review Scope The purpose of this EA is to assess the
environmental impacts of Envirocare's requested modification to
its December 2003 Order.
This EA does not approve or deny the requested action. A separate
Safety Evaluation Report (SER) also will be issued in support of
the approval or denial of the requested action. This EA will
determine whether to issue or prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). Should the NRC issue a FONSI, no EIS will be
prepared.
Proposed Action Envirocare proposes that the NRC amend the
December 29, 2003, Order to: (1) Modify the table in Condition 1
to include criticality-based limits for uranium-233 and plutonium
isotopes in waste containing up to 20 percent of materials listed
in Condition 2 (e.g., magnesium oxide); (2) include
criticality-based limits in the table in Condition 1 for
plutonium isotopes in waste with unlimited materials in Condition
2, and in waste with unlimited quantities of materials in
Conditions 2 and 3 (e.g., beryllium); (3) provide
criticality-based limits for uranium- 235 as a function of
enrichment in waste containing up to 20 percent of materials
listed in Condition 2 and in waste containing none of the
materials listed in Condition 2; and (4) include additional mixed
waste treatment technologies.
Need for the Proposed Action In its July 8, 2003, request,
Envirocare states that it is currently at a competitive
disadvantage with another waste disposal company. Envirocare
would like to expand its capabilities to
[[Page 41242]] accept additional waste streams and treat waste
using additional technologies. In order to do so, Conditions 1
and 5 of the Order would need to be revised.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action The only alternative to the
proposed action that the NRC staff considered was the no-action
alternative. Under the no-action alternative, the Order would not
be revised.
Affected Environment The NRC staff has prepared an environmental
impact statement (EIS) (NUREG-1476; August 1993), EAs, and SERs
for its previous actions. The affected environment for the
Envirocare site is described in detail in NUREG-1476.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives No-Action Alternative:
For the no-action alternative, the environmental impacts would be
the same as those evaluated in the EAs that support the May 21,
1999, Order (64 FR 26463, May 14, 1999), the January 30, 2003,
modification of the Order (68 FR 3281, January 23, 2003), and the
December 29, 2003, modification of the Order (68 FR 59645,
October 16, 2003). The regulations regarding SNM possession in 10
CFR part 150 set mass limits whereby a licensee is exempted from
the licensing requirements of 10 CFR part 70 and can be regulated
by an Agreement State. The licensing requirements in 10 CFR part
70 apply to persons possessing greater than critical mass
quantities (as defined in 10 CFR 150.11). The principal emphasis
of 10 CFR part 70 is criticality safety and safeguarding SNM
against diversion or sabotage. The NRC staff considers that
criticality safety can be maintained by relying on concentration
limits, under the specified conditions. These concentration
limits are considered an alternative definition of quantities not
sufficient to form a critical mass to the weight limits in 10 CFR
150.11, thereby assuring the same level of protection. The 1999
and the two 2003 EAs concluded that issuance of the Order would
have no significant radiological or non-radiological
environmental impacts.
Proposed Action: For the proposed action, the environmental
impacts are not expected to be significant. Effluent releases and
potential doses to the public are regulated by the State of Utah
and are not anticipated to change as a result of this revision.
The NRC staff previously determined in the 1999 EA that there
would be no significant radiological or non-radiological impacts
resulting from the proposed limits of uranium and plutonium. In
addition, these revisions to the Order are not expected to
significantly change environmental impacts from current
operations at Envirocare.
For Envirocare, the changes to the limits will allow the site to
accept new waste streams, which may increase the number of waste
shipments to the site. It is estimated that this may result in
approximately 100 additional shipments per year to the site,
which equates to about two shipments per week. It is not expected
that the small increase in shipments would have a significant
environmental impact to the local area.
In addition, it is not expected that Envirocares's use of the new
waste processing technologies would have significant
environmental impacts. These technologies would be used in
treating and stabilizing waste containing SNM, and any effluents
from these processes would be collected and managed to prevent
release. As stated previously, potential radiological doses are
not anticipated to change as a result of the use of these new
technologies.
Conclusion Based on its review, the NRC staff finds that the
environmental impacts from the proposed action and the no-action
alternative are similar. Since the proposed action will not
significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the
NRC staff concludes that the proposed action is the preferred
alternative.
Agencies and Persons Consulted Officials from the State of Utah,
Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Radiation
Control were contacted about this EA for the proposed action and
had no comments. Because the proposed action is not expected to
have any impact on threatened or endangered species or historic
resources, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State of
Utah Historic Preservation Officer were not contacted.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the EA, The
NRC has concluded that there are no significant environmental
impacts from the proposed amendment and has determined not to
prepare an environmental impact statement.
IV. Further Information Documents related to this action,
including the application for amendment and supporting
documentation, will be available electronically at the NRC's
Electronic Reading Room at
http://www.NRC.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can
access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System
(ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public
documents. The ADAMS accession numbers for the documents related
to this notice are: Envirocare's June 8, 2003, request (ADAMS
Accession No.
ML031950334) and the NRC staff's June 2005 SER (ADAMS Accession
No.
ML041190003). If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are
problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the
NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public
computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint
North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR
reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee.
Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of July, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Scott C. Flanders, Deputy Director, Environmental & Performance
Assessment Directorate, Division of Waste Management and
Environmental Protection, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 05-14026 Filed 7-15-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
17 [du-list] DU - THE DEAD CHILDREN'S SOCIETY.......
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:49:43 -0700
The Dead Children's Society
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July05/Marshall0714.htm
Dissident Voice - Santa Rosa,CA,USA
... a significant rise in birth defects and childhood cancer during the last
few years, likely due to the parent's exposure to depleted uranium and
radiation and ...
Free films let public react
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050715/NEWS01/1071
50007/-1/STYLE
Nashua Telegraph - Nashua,NH,USA
WILTON -- Organic farming, depleted uranium and electoral reform are not
exactly the stuff of summer blockbusters, but some folks think that doesn't
mean
...
==========================
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
18 [du-list] Radioactivity Problems at Portsmouth/Paducah
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:50:24 -0700
Release July 16th, 2006..
=============================================================
"A Citizen's Guide to Monitor Radioactivity"
http://www.isar.org/docs/GuideMay2005.pdf
I wanted everyone to know what a great job Norm Buske and Do Lee did
releasing the report, "A Citizen's Guide to Monitor Radioactivity", in
Portsmouth on Friday. Norm Buske is with The RadioActivist Campaign
(TRAC) and Do Lee is with ISAR: Resources for Environmental Activists.
The report is based on the work of Dr. Sergey Pashenko and his wife
Lena, my friends from Russia, both with Siberian Scientists for Global
Responsibility, who started with this project in 2003 and finished in
2005. Sergey and Lena had help from many here in the USA.
On his visit to the Piketon site, Dr. Pashenko identified a sample of
"hot" foam in Big Run Creek that had levels of beta emission that was
hundreds of times higher than background levels. PRESS announced this
discovery in 2003, after which USEC took samples of the foam, with the
oversight of the Ohio EPA. In February 2005, the DOE wrote to me,
explaining that their analysis of the foam "did not indicate the
presence of radionuclides above normal background levels." USEC
produced the DOE letter to the NRC as evidence to discredit Dr.
Pashenko's results in the PRESS intervention against USEC. However,
Norm Buske spotted that the numbers quoted in the DOE letter didn't
support the DOE conclusion that the foam was normal. Rather, the
numbers supported Dr. Pashenko's conclusion that the foam was "hot."
Norm Buske's analysis is on page 32 of the Guide (PDF page 33).
Further, Norm Buske interpreted Dr. Pashenko's data as showing that
the beta emitter in the foam is likely to be Radium 226, which is also
a source of neutron emission. Norm speculated that this might
indicate new nuclear weapon production at the site.
We are still waiting for the media report of this big story. To allow
gross beta sources to flow off site in this community is a criminal
act. We can no longer pretend that there is no off-site radiation. We
are outraged that our government is letting this happen. It was also
clear that the Paducah plant needs to be investigated.
After Norm Buske's presentation, PRESS Technical Co-ordinator Ewan
Todd showed a few maps, indicating the pathways from the atomic
reservation to the the location of the "hot" foam. He also discussed
the progress of the PRESS litigation against USEC. The NRC has
granted PRESS standing to intervene in USEC's license application
proceeding. USEC is applying for a license to operate a huge uranium
enrichment plant, known as the American Centrifuge Plant (ACP). PRESS
is intervening to argue that the NRC should deny the license
application. Also, there is a second intervention against USEC by
Geoffrey Sea, who is concerned about the giant Hopewell monuments
close to the planned site of the ACP.
www.nnwj.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
19 [du-list] [ from RadSafe to du-list ] depleted uranium arms
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:45:05 -0700
Roger Helbig wrote:
> The present study confirms that there is a significant
> rise in the incidence rate of congenital anomalies in
> Basrah during the period from 1990 to 1998. However,
> the figures reported are only underestimates, since it
> includes only discernible malformations....
True.
I wish I had the time to read J.B. Bishop, K.L. Witt, and
R.A. Sloane, "Genetic toxicities of human teratogen," in
Mutation Research, vol. 369 (1997) pp. 9-43. That volume
doesn't appear to be online at present.
I have read Q. Hu and S. Zhu, "Induction of chromosomal
aberrations in male mouse germ cells by uranyl fluoride
containing enriched uranium," in Mutation Research, vol. 244
(1990) pp. 209-214. I wish someone had the money to do a
similar study with inhaled uranyl oxide vapor -- UO3(g) --
and I suspect that someone does, in a forgotten account.
Sincerely,
James Salsman
---- earlier message ----
Subject: multiple DoE FOIAss CH-05-16 and F2005-00366 and NRC petitions
PRM-20-26 and ADAMS#ML051240497
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 06:12:17 -0700
From: James Salsman
To: tjlodge50 at yahoo.com, SECY at nrc.gov, JXD1 at nrc.gov,
Linda.Rohde at ch.doe.gov, Joan.Ogbazghi at hq.doe.gov,
Abel.Lopez at hq.doe.gov
CC: iaa4 at cdc.gov, christina.pak at nnsa.doe.gov....
Annette Vietti-Cook
Secretary
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Joseph DeCicco
Petition Manager
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Terry Lodge
U.S. Citizen
Eastern Time Zone
Dear Ms. Vietti-Cook and Gentlemen:
Thank you for your continued help and understanding acknowledgment.
The FOIARs that I submitted to the Department of Energy and Argonne
National Laboratories concerning uranium "or" uranium compound
toxicology are replied to in this message. I hope that "or" is
being read as "and/or." I have two nearly identical Freedom of
Information Act requests pending with the Department of Energy.
Linda Rohde may be reached by email to linda.rohde at ch.doe.gov.
Her phone number is 630.252.2042. She is a Freedom of Information
Officer at the Department of Energy, working with docket number
CH-05-16. Ms. Rohde indicates that the Department of Energy's
Chief Financial Officer is studying the size of my request, the
estimated processing fees, and the anticipated response date, and
that she will immediately notify me of the results.
Joan.Ogbazghi at hq.doe.gov and Abel.Lopez at hq.doe.gov were the
correspondents responding to similar D.o.E. FOIAR F2005-00366. I
wish to consolidate my requests, and that my appeals here all be
granted.
Please let Ms. Rohde, Mr. Lopez, and Ms. Ogbazghi know about the two
similar requests which have been filed. Please indicate to all of
them that I have appealed all denials, and that I am awaiting reply.
Please ask Ms. Rohde, Mr. Lopez, and Ms. Ogbazghi for copies, or
summaries and representative copies, of the resulting records.
Please let Ms. Rohde know that I wish to appeal her rejection of my
request to waive fees. I do not wish to waive my rights, including
the right to use collections of the requested records in any lawful
manner including submission of the results to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, the right to recover the costs of submitting correct
and beneficial petitions, and the right to share the requested
information without undue financial burden. Apparently "authors"
are allowed commercial use. Therefore, I wish to change my status
from "author" to "research author" if you think that best. Please
let me know the wisdom, likelihood, implications, and status of
that request, and/or any alternative request that you think are
likely better for at least one reason.
Please let them all know that I wish the results of my requests to
be included on the record and provided to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's Petition Review Board for my petition of April 3, 2005
(ADAMS accession no. ML051240497) and on the Secretary's docket for
NRC petition for rule making no. PRM-20-26 of May 6, 2005. I ask
that the results of my Freedom of Information Act Requests submitted
to the Department of Energy be submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission Secretary and Petition Review Board.
Please incorporate my similar appeal of the corresponding request
submitted to the D.o.E. earlier this year if necessary.
Please ask Ms. Rohde for a copy of her letter to me dated July 7, 2005.
Ms. Rohde suggested the following information would be useful:
1. Subject of Request: information concerning the full toxicology
profile of uranium and uranium compounds and uranium combustion
products, in the form of the financial records of the agency(ies)
responsible for knowing the requested information. These financial
records concern the appropriation, budgeting, allocation, commitment,
programing, encumbering, utilization and/or expenditure of funds for
the uranium and uranium compound toxicology profile including the
developmental, reproductive, and long-term reproductive toxicology
profile of uranium and its (combustion) products.
2. Value of Information: In order to compute the value of the
information requested, the government must disclose accurate
actuarial tables to describe in monetary terms the insurance value
of human life found in practice. The extent of current accurate
knowledge of the long-term reproductive toxicological profile of
uranium and its products will be apparent from the records requested.
3. Contribution of understanding: Without knowledge of the long-
term toxicological profile of uranium, no extrapolation of the
implications to society, including costs, can be made. The ability
to extrapolate such information is necessary to compute the long-
term, strategic value of the use of uranium byproduct munitions.
It is also necessary to determine the appropriate level of allowed
intake of uranyl compounds. Optimizing both of those values is in
the public interest, and that they both are implies that the benefit
of disclosure outweighs any imaginable reason for withholding
4. Significance: The number of 1991 combat-deployed Gulf War
veterans suffering death or significant debilitation, along with
those considering having children has reached multiple hundreds of
thousands. This is perhaps the most significant "friendly fire"
incident in the history of our nation.
5. I have no commercial interest which would be furthered if I
had the requested information.
6. Disclosure of the information is probably not in my commercial
interest.
I wish to apply the information above and below, for my appeal of
the denied expedited processing of request F2005-00366, to my
appeal of the denied fee waiver and denied expedited processing to
request CH-05-16. Thank you for any help towards these ends that
you may be able to provide.
I do not wish to halt my appeals. Please let me know the most
economical way to proceed in order to optimize both the ability to
determine the long-term, strategic value of the use of uranium
byproduct munitions, and the appropriate level of uranyl compound
intake consistent with actuarial practice.
I ask that all my correspondence with the D.o.E. and the N.R.C. be
allowed in response to any request for it, by any member of the
public or the government, or any foreign citizen.
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct.
Sincerely,
James Salsman
---- earlier message ----
Subject: FOIAR F2005-00366
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 01:50:31 -0700
From: James Salsman
To: Joan.Ogbazghi at hq.doe.gov, Abel.Lopez at hq.doe.gov
FEE WAIVER INFORMATION AND EXPEDITED PROCESSING APPEAL
Re: F2005-00366
Dear Mr. Lopez:
This is in reply to your response to my Freedom of Information Act
Request which you sent to me on June 17th. I have requested access to
and copies of all records of funds appropriated, budgeted, allocated,
committed, programmed, expended, encumbered, utilized, or spent for the
purposes of determining the full toxicological profile of uranium,
uranium compounds, and/or uranium combustion products, from 1995 to the
present. I am writing to provide the additional information concerning
my request to waive all fees that you asked me to send to Ms. Joan
Ogbazghi, to whom I am sending a copy of this message, and to appeal
your denial of my request for expedited processing.
Because I requested a waiver of fees, you asked that I provide
additional information addressing the four factors of 10 CFR
1004.9(a)(8). Here is the additional information as requested:
1. The subject of the requested records concerns the operations and the
activities of the government. The government has been involved in the
regulation of uranium, uranium compounds, and uranium combustion
products for more than half a century, since the passage of the Atomic
Energy Act and its precursors. The government has investigated the
toxicity of uranium in several studies performed under contract to the
Department of Energy at Argonne National Laboratories. There appeared
to have been some preliminary investigation into the reproductive
toxicity of uranium in the 1960s and '70s, but that work was apparently
discontinued because the cost and time involved (often decades) of
determining a full profile of a reproductive toxin in the 1970s was
prohibitive. Modern genome sequencing methods have reduced that time
and cost required by orders of magnitude, and in the late 1980s and '90s
several independent researchers published developmental and reproductive
toxicology studies. The question remains whether the government ever
completed the full toxicological profile of uranium, compounds, and
combustion products, and if not, whether there is money allocated but
not spent which would allow the government to do so now that it is easy
and inexpensive.
2. The disclosure of the requested information is likely to contribute
to an understanding of government operations and activities, because the
financial accounting surrounding investigations into uranium toxicology
is presently obscure. If the accounting for the subject were brought to
light, then it would be easy for interested parties to use money which
was possibly allocated but never spent, pending the conclusion of
decades of reproductive toxicity research. Even if the money to
complete the toxicological profile of uranium was never allocated,
without knowledge of the details it will be much more difficult to
insure that the toxicological profile is completed.
3. The requested information will contribute to an understanding by the
general public because it will be provided to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission staff responsible for the regulation of exposure limits for
uranium which are presently the subject of my petitions published in the
Federal Register, vol. 70 (June 15, 2005.), pp. 34699. The comments
received in response to that petition pertaining to the reproductive
toxicity of uranium are being published by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission to the medical experts who will use them in guidance to set
standards for exposure to uranium. I have a similar petition presently
pending before the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant
Identification Committee in the California State Office of Environmental
Health Hazard Assessment. These people are responsible for setting
exposure guidelines for the U.S. and California, and their work informed
by the requested information will be published widely to the people
responsible for limiting the release of toxins including uranium
compounds and combustion products.
4. The requested information is expected to contribute significantly to
public understanding, because at present the full toxicological profile
of uranium is incomplete, to wit, it is missing the long-term profile of
uranium reproductive and developmental toxicity in humans. In February,
1991, and more recently, large numbers of U.S. armed forces, U.S.
contractors, and civilians have been exposed to uranium combustion products.
You denied my request for expedited processing because I did not
establish that there is any threat to the life or safety of an
individual that would justify expeditious processing, and because I did
not identify an urgency.
A threat to life and safety requiring urgent action is clear because the
toxicological profile of uranium, which is released on a daily basis by
government and industry, is still incomplete. The requested information
will substantially increase the likelihood of swiftly completing the
reproductive and developmental toxicology profile of uranium.
Uranium has been known as a reproductive toxin by authorities on uranium
toxicology since as far back as 1953:
"Degenerative changes in the testes resulting in aspermia in the
testes and epididymis [were] apparently a result of uranyl nitrate"
-- Maynard, E.A., Downs, W.L. and Hodge, H.C., "Oral toxicity of
uranium compounds," in Voegtlin, C. and Hodge, H.C., editors,
_Pharmacology and Toxicology of Uranium_, Volume 3 (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1953), pp. 1221-1369.
Recent studies confirm this fact:
"In rats, there is strong evidence of depleted uranium accumulation
in tissues including testes, bone, kidneys, and brain." -- Pellmar,
et al., "Distribution of uranium in rats implanted with depleted
uranium pellets," _Toxicol Sci_, vol. 49 (1999) pp. 29-39.
"existing data indicate that implanted DU translocates to the
rodent testes and ovary, the placenta, and fetus.... DU has been
shown to be genotoxic...." Benson, K.A., Evaluation of the health
risks of embedded depleted uranium (DU) shrapnel on pregnancy and
offspring development, Annual Report No. 19981118065, October 1998.
That obscure publication cites A.C. Miller of the U.S. Armed Forces
Radiobiology Research Institute, who indicates that the chemical
toxicity of uranium is about six orders of decimal magnitude worse than
its radiological hazard, in "Depleted uranium-catalyzed oxidative DNA
damage: absence of significant alpha particle decay," Journal of
Inorganic Biochemistry, vol. 91 (2002), pp 246252:
http://www.bovik.org/du/Miller-DNA-damage.pdf
Uranium has also been a known developmental toxin since as far back as
1989, "The Developmental Toxicity of Uranium in Mice," Toxicology, vol.
55 (1989), pp. 143-152: http://www.bovik.org/du/devtox-mice.pdf
In February, 1991, and more recently, a large number of people serving
in the U.S. Armed Forces were exposed to uranium combustion products by
inhalation, along with other substances such as fossil fuel combustion
products, insect repellents, antidotes, and vaccinations, all of which
have been shown, according to Pentagon officials, to free from
reproductive hazards either alone or in any combination. However, the
exposed veterans suffered significant reproductive harm:
"Overall, the risk of any malformation among pregnancies reported
by men was 50% higher in Gulf War Veterans (GWV) compared with
Non-GWVs" -- Doyle et al., _Int. J. Epidemiol._, vol. 33 (2004),
pp. 74-86: http://ije.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/33/1/74
"Infants conceived postwar to male GWVs had significantly higher
prevalence of tricuspid valve insufficicieny (relative risk [RR],
2.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-6.6; p = 0.039) and aortic
valve stenosis (RR, 6.0; 95% CI, 1.2-31.0; p = 0.026) compared to
infants conceived postwar to nondeployed veteran males. Among infants
of male GWVs, aortic valve stenosis (RR, 163; 95% CI, 0.09-294; p
= 0.011) and renal agenesis or hypoplasia (RR, 16.3; 95% CI, 0.09-294;
p = 0.011) were significantly higher among infants conceived postwar
than prewar." -- Araneta, et al., "Prevalence of birth defects among
infants of Gulf War veterans in Arkansas, Arizona, California,
Georgia, Hawaii, and Iowa, 1989-1993," _Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol
Teratol._, vol. 67, no. 4 (April, 2003) pp. 246-60:
http://www.bovik.org/du/mscusn/BD_Infants_GWV_AR_AZ_CA_GA_HI_IA_1989-1993.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12854660&dopt=Abstract
It is estimated that exposure to only 0.34 mg of uranium can result in
symptoms: "Estimate of the Time Zero Lung Burden of Depleted Uranium
in Persian Gulf War Veterans by the 24-Hour Urinary Excretion and
Exponential Decay Analysis," _Military Medicine_, vol. 168, no. 8
(2003) pp. 600-605:
http://www.bovik.org/du/inhalation-est.pdf
Please see also:
http://www.bovik.org/du/chromosome-abberations.pdf
http://www.bovik.org/du/5_Durakovic.pdf
http://www.bovik.org/du/4_Durakovic.pdf
I have obtained the data in this graph, originally published by the
Iraqi government in early 2001, and since confirmed in 2004 by
physicians working in Basrah, Iraq. It represents the birth defect rate
in Basrah, Iraq over years:
http://www.bovik.org/du/basrah.gif
That graph is based on Table 1 of this medical journal article:
http://www.irak.be/ned/archief/Depleted%20Uranium_bestanden/DEPLETED%20URANIUM-2-%20INCIDENCE.htm
Med J Basrah Univ, vol. 17, nos. 1-2 (1999), "DEPLETED URANIUM
AND HEALTH OF PEOPLE IN BASRAH: EPIDEMILOGICAL EVIDENCE."
Because of the disturbing acceleration in that trend, it is clear that
the lack of a complete reproductive toxicology profile of uranium
presents a clear and urgent threat the the life and safety of the
children of the exposed. It seems very likely that this source of
catalytic radical-induced (e.g., hydroxyl-induced) DNA damage, a million
times as more hazardous than its radioactivity, will continue to cause
increasing amounts of chromosome damage over an expected human lifespan.
Therefore, failure to obtain the requested information, which is very
likely to help complete the reproductive toxicological profile of
uranium, would be very likely to result in additional overexposures in
those populations which might easily avoid overexposures if the full
toxicological profile was known. Moreover, without the requested
information and the completion of the toxicological profile which is
very likely to result from it, exposed individuals considering
parenthood will not have the information they require in order to fully
understand the likelihood of debilitating birth defects.
The exposed public must know how much reproductive harm to expect from
the current exposure levels, and regulators must also have this data to
determine the appropriate exposure goals. Please let me know if I am in
any way incorrect about the urgency and the corresponding threat to the
life and safety of the children of the exposed.
For those reasons, I appeal your decision to deny expedited processing
of my request. If you do not understand the unavoidable implication of
a threat to life and safety requiring urgent action from an incomplete
toxicological profile of a known developmental and reproductive toxin
presently being released, and why the requested information will reduce
that threat, then please let me know. Otherwise, please expedite the
processing of my request.
If you have any further questions about this request, or the information
and appeal provided above, please phone me at 650.793.0162 or use email
instead of postal mail.
Sincerely,
James Salsman
---- excerpts and amplification of supplemental message ----
Subject: Re: FOIA REQUEST - recommended response: Birth defects among
infants of Gulf War veterans
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 15:13:02 -0700
Thank you ... for your thoughts on my request to:
Margaret A. K. Ryan, MD, MPH
CDR, MC, USN
Director, DoD Center for Deployment Health Research
Naval Health Research Center
PO Box 85122
San Diego, CA 92186-5122
(619)553-7027, Fax (619)553-7601
She has offered that I contact her and/or her staff directly.
If you or anyone else with an interest in the subject would
like to speak with her, please be my guest.
As far as I can tell, they do have access to sufficient Gulf
War veteran combat deployment information, or would if they
asked for it, and should have been expected to ask for it.
Apparently they have chosen not to, even though they acknowledge
the problem in their references [4, 5] of the PDF files at:
http://www.bovik.org/du/mscusn/BIHR_annual_report_1998.pdf
http://www.bovik.org/du/mscusn/BIHR_annual_report_1999.pdf
and:
http://www.bovik.org/du/mscusn/BIHR_annual_report_2000.pdf
Please see.
Without that information we will not know whether the birth
defect rate, as described here:
http://www.bovik.org/du/mscusn/BD_Infants_GWV_AR_AZ_CA_GA_HI_IA_1989-1993.pdf
is accelerating, as it has been in Basrah, as described here:
http://www.irak.be/ned/archief/Depleted%20Uranium_bestanden/DEPLETED%20URANIUM-2-%20INCIDENCE.htm
Med J Basrah Univ, vol. 17, nos. 1-2 (1999), "DEPLETED URANIUM
AND HEALTH OF PEOPLE IN BASRAH: EPIDEMILOGICAL EVIDENCE."
Asking regulators to try to set limits on uranium's reproductive
toxicity rate without this crucial information is absurd.
Because the long-term reproductive toxicity of uranium
inhalation is unknown beyond the exposures which hav not been
completely reported, we must all join together to demand this
information. If we are refused, we must let U.S. citizens know
about the officials responsible for refraining to publish the
information, and their stated reasons....
Sincerely,
James Salsman
[Federal Register: June 15, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 114)]
[Page 34699-34700]
Proposed Rules
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 20
[Docket No. PRM-20-26]
James Salsman, Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; notice of receipt.
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing for
public comment a notice of receipt of a petition for rulemaking, dated
May 6, 2005, which was filed with the Commission by James Salsman. The
petition was docketed by the NRC on May 13, 2005, and has been assigned
Docket No. PRM-20-26. The petitioner requests that the NRC amend its
regulations to modify exposure and environmental limits of heavy metal
radionuclides.
DATES: Submit comments by August 29, 2005. Comments received after this
date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission
is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before
this date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods.
Please include the following number PRM-20-26 in the subject line of
your comments. Comments on petitions submitted in writing or in
electronic form will be made available for public inspection. Because
your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact
information, the NRC cautions you against including any information in
your submission that you do not want to be publicly disclosed.
Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
E-mail comments to: SECY@nrc.gov. If you do not receive a reply e-
mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact us
directly at (301) 415-1966. You may also submit comments via the NRC's
rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Address questions
about our rulemaking Web site to Carol Gallagher (301) 415-5905; e-mail
cag@nrc.gov. Comments can also be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking
Portal http://www.regulations.gov.
Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. (Telephone
(301) 415-1966).
Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at
(301) 415-1101.
Publicly available documents related to this petition may be viewed
electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public
Document Room (PDR), O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy
documents for a fee. Selected documents, including comments, may be
viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC rulemaking web site at
http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.
Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after
November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic
Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this
site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Document
Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image
files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or
if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS,
contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-
397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rules and
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, Telephone: 301-415-7163 or Toll Free: 800-368-5642.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The NRC has established standards for protection against ionizing
radiation resulting from activities conducted by licensees and has
issued these standards in the regulations codified in 10 CFR part 20.
These regulations are intended to control the receipt, possession, use,
transfer, and disposal of licensed material by its licensees. Licensed
material is any source, byproduct, or special nuclear material
received, possessed, used, transferred, or disposed of under a general
or specific license issued by the NRC.
Appendix B to part 20 lists the Annual Limits on Intake (ALIs) and
Derived Air Concentrations of radionuclides for occupational exposure,
effluent concentrations, and concentrations for release to sewerage.
The Petitioner's Discussion
The petitioner believes that the current regulations allow more
soluble compounds than insoluble compounds. The petitioner states that
the regulations were designed to address only the radiological hazard
of uranium, and not the heavy metal toxicity, which is known to be
about six orders of magnitude worse. The petitioner asserts, in
practice, that the soluble compounds are far more toxic than the
insoluble compounds. The petitioner states that this should indicate
that the long half-life uranium isotope regulation standards need to be
completely revised.
The petitioner states that in the current regulations, an annual
inhalation of more than two grams of uranium is allowed. The petitioner
states that because the LD50/30 of uranyl nitrate (which has
considerably less uranyl ion per unit of mass than uranium trioxide) is
2.1 mg/kg in rabbits, 12.6 mg/kg in dogs, 48 mg/kg in rats, and 51 mg/
kg in guinea pigs and albino mice, two grams of UO3 seems very likely
to comprise a fatal dose for a 200 pound human (Gmelin Handbook of
Inorganic Chemistry, 8th edition, English translation (1982), vol. U-
A7, pp. 312-322).
The petitioner believes that these values seem much too high. He
believes that they were derived to avoid immediate kidney failure only,
without regard to reproductive toxicity. The petitioner does not
believe they were derived with sufficient care to avoid allowing lethal
exposures. The petitioner states that the explicit limit to 10 mg/day
of soluble uranium compounds (or about half a gram per year) in 10 CFR
20.1201(e) seems likely
[[Page 34700]]
to allow substantial kidney damage and certain reproductive toxicity.
The petitioner states that a urine study performed (see
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12943033
) calculates an average initial lung burden of 0.34 milligrams elemental
uranium for those with isotopic signatures consistent with exposure to
depleted uranium in what he believes were symptomatic exposure victims.
The petitioner believes that this study is flawed, as it assumes a
uranium compound biological half-time of 3.85 years in the lungs. The
petitioner states that the primary mode of uranium toxicity involves
much greater solubility. The petitioner believes that monomeric uranium
trioxide will turn out to be absorbed more rapidly in the mammalian lung
than uranyl nitrate, because of its monomolecular gas nature, and not
merely about as rapidly as the studies of granular uranium trioxide by
P.E. Morrow, et al., indicate (``Inhalation Studies of Uranium Trioxide,''
Health Physics, vol. 23 (1972), pp. 273-280). The petitioner states that
even Class D may not be appropriate for monomolecular uranium trioxide gas.
The petitioner believes the correct way to determine these values,
to account for the reproductive toxicity, is probably to measure
resulting mutations of mammalian peripheral lymphocytes, such as was
done in this study of Gulf War veterans (
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12678382
).
The Petitioner's Request
The petitioner requests that the NRC revise its regulations in 10
CFR part 20 that specify limits for ingestion and inhalation
occupational values, effluent concentrations, and releases to sewers,
for all heavy metal radionuclides with nonradiological chemical
toxicity hazards exceeding that of their radiological hazards so that
those limits properly reflect the hazards associated with reproductive
toxicity, danger to organs, and all other known nonradiological aspects
of heavy metal toxicity. The petitioner states that many of these
limits consider the radiological hazard of certain chemically toxic
radionuclides with slight radiological dangers (e.g., Uranium-238),
without regard to their greater nonradiological hazard. The petitioner
notes that this petition does not request increasing the permissible
quantities given by any of those limits specified. The petitioner also
states that, for example, the soluble forms of Uranium-238 compounds,
which are more toxic if inhaled than the insoluble compounds, are
allowed in greater quantities than their insoluble compounds. Other
examples may include, but are not necessarily limited to, Uranium-232,
Plutonium-239, and other long half-life isotopes of the heavy metal
elements. The petitioner also requests that the classification for
uranium trioxide within Class W, given in the Class column of the table
for Uranium-230 in Appendix B to 10 CFR part 20, be amended to Class D
in light of P.E. Morrow, et al., ``Inhalation Studies of Uranium
Trioxide'' (Health Physics, vol. 23 (1972), pp. 273-280), which states:
``inhalation studies with uranium trioxide (UO3) indicated that the
material was more similar to soluble uranyl salts than to the so-called
insoluble oxides * * * UO3 is rapidly removed from the lungs, with most
following a 4.7 day biological half time.''
The petitioner also requests that monomeric (monomolecular) uranium
trioxide gas, as produced by the oxidation of U3O8 at temperatures
above 1000 Celsius, be assigned its own unique solubility class if
necessary, at such time in the future that its solubility
characteristics become known (R.J. Ackermann, R.J. Thorn, C. Alexander,
and M. Tetenbaum, in ``Free Energies of Formation of Gaseous Uranium,
Molybdenum, and Tungsten Trioxides,'' Journal of Physical Chemistry,
vol. 64 (1960) pp. 350-355: ``gaseous monomeric uranium trioxide is the
principal species produced by the reaction of U3O8 with oxygen'' at
1200 Kelvin and above).
Conclusion
The petitioner requests that 10 CFR part 20 be revised in
accordance with the proposed revisions as set forth above.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of June 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-11799 Filed 6-14-05; 8:45 am]
See: http://www.bovik.org/du/NRC-PRM-20-26.pdf
Please send a comment before August 29th to SECY@nrc.gov with a
subject line such as: comments on PRM-20-26 toxicity petition
I recommend that you include the following points:
1. Current regulations ignore the developmental and reproductive
toxicity of heavy metal radionuclides, and are at present designed
only to prevent kidney failure.
2. The reproductive toxicology profile for uranium combustion
product inhalation in humans is currently unknown with any accuracy
beyond 14 years (i.e., since the February 1991 exposures) and has
shown an increasing and accelerating tendency, consistent with the
fact that uranium accumulates in testes damaging sperm production
cells and increasing chromosome damage over time.
3. It is completely unethical and immoral to allow any release of
a known reproductive toxin without a fully established toxicology
profile. Doing so is reckless and negligent; to willfully allow
such releases is potentially a crime.
4. Regulators should attempt to extrapolate the existing known
toxicology profile of heavy metal radionuclides and assume the
worst case within the projections' 95% confidence intervals, and
in an abundance of caution allow at least a two order-of-magnitude
margin of error for limiting the increase in congenital
malformations in children of the exposed to 5% after 30 years.
Sincerely,
James Salsman
---- the announcement of my other NRC petition ---
70 Fed. Reg. 32661 (June 3, 2005)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Receipt of Request for Action Under 10 CFR 2.206
Docket No. 040-08850, License No. SUB-1440, ATK Tactical Systems
Company, LLC
Docket No. 030-28641, License No. 42-23539-01AF, Department of the Air Force
Docket No. 040-06394, License No. SMB-141, Department of the Army
Docket No. 040-07086, License No. SUB-734, Department of the Army
Docket No. 040-08814, License No. SMB-1411, Department of the Army
Docket No. 040-08838, License No. SUB-1435, Department of the Army
Docket No. 040-07354, License No. SUB-834, Department of the Army
Docket No. 040-08779, License No. SUC-1391, Department of the Army
Docket No. 040-08767, License No. SUC-1380, Department of the Army
Docket No. 030-29462, License No. 45-23645-01NA, Department of the Navy
Notice is hereby given that by petition dated April 3, 2005, James
Salsman has requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission take
action with regard to licensees holding a depleted uranium munitions
license. The petitioner requests that ``* * * all licenses allowing the
possession, transport, storage, or use of pyrophoric uranium munitions
be modified to impose enforceable conditions on all such licensees in
order to rectify their misconduct * * *.''
The petitioner states ``The basis for this request is the gross
negligence on the part of the licensees, * * *.''
The request is being treated pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the
Commission's regulations. The request has been referred to the Director
of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS). As
provided by 10 CFR 2.206, appropriate action will be taken on this
petition within 120 days. The petitioner discussed the petition with the
NMSS Petition Review Board on May 4, 2005. The results of that
discussion were considered in the Board's determination regarding the
petitioner's request for immediate action and in establishing the
schedule for the review of the petition. By letter dated May 26, 2005,
the Director denied the petitioner's request for immediate action
regarding depleted uranium munitions licenses. A copy of the petition
(Accession Number ML051240497) is available in the Agencywide Documents
and Management System (ADAMS) for inspection at the Commission's Public
Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and from the ADAMS Public Library
component on NRC's Web site, http://www.nrc.gov (the Public Electronic
Reading Room).
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of May, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jack R. Strosnider,
Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
---- end 70 Fed. Reg. 32661 (June 3, 2005) ---
See also: http://www.bovik.org/du/du-petition.html
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/
*****************************************************************
20 [du-list] Appeal to America from Afghan DU & Recovery Fund
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:44:55 -0700
Dear Listmembers,
Perhaps I should introduce myself before forwarding the following
message. My name
is James Ward, and I live in Santa Ana, California. I joined this group
only a week or
so ago, and am pleased to have discovered such a valuable resource. I
cannot claim
to have done much to fight againt the use of DU weapons.
I found the following appeal on the rense.com website (which is admittedly
not to
everyone's taste!), and thought that you might like to see it. The
included link to the
International Humanities Center led to this address for the Afghan DU &
Recovery
Fund itself:
www.afghandufund.org
Here is the appeal:
Appeal To America
From Afghan DU
& Recovery Fund
7-17-5
Irrespective of geographic location, kindness and humanity cannot be
segregated by
mere borders. Equally, a segment of common people in all countries do not
necessarily agree with the policies - and crimes - of their own
governments. Hence,
we are appealing to the decency of those in America who care about the
unspeakable
tragedies the people of Afganistan have suffered under the current US
administration.
To this end, we, in the Afghan DU & Recovery Fund are reaching out to
Americans and
all peoples of goodwill and conscience to assist us in reaching the modest
financial
goal of only $20,000 US to help cover expenses for equipment and tools for
doctors
and peace organizations in Afghanistan. For example, doctors throughout
Afghanistan need digital cameras to record the burgeoning number of tragically-
deformed newborn babies and other DU horrors that will be
with the Afghan people for countless generations to come.
Since the use of nuclear uranium weapons by the US government in
Afghanistan, large
areas in the country are terribly-contaminated...ruined, essentially.
Consequently, the
number of newborns with congenital deformities - and of cancers among
adults and
children - has risen exponentially to levels
that are unimaginable to outside peoples and countries.
To do any useful epidemiological work, there needs to be accurate recording of
various congenital deformities and photographing those conditions, and general
research and documentation of the
catastrophic legacy of this nuclear war.
So, we appeal to your humanity to contribute your tax-deductible
contribution to the
Afghan DU and Recovery Fund and be counted as a segment of the American people
showing kindness and concern for your fellow human beings - victims of your
own
government's policies.
http://www.ihcenter.org/groups/afghandufund.html
Again, the equipment we are attempting to purchase includes digital
cameras, tape
recorders, and a few computers. We also need to purchase a used, four-wheel
drive
vehicle to serve as transport for our volunteers to get from one rugged
region to
another in order to ask questions and record medical and environmental
information.
Your assistance is profoundly appreciated.
With sincere regards,
The Afghan DU & Recovery Fund
_____
Note from Jeff Rense -
I personally support this effort and urge all who read this to step forward
with
whatever they can. The horrors and devastation visited upon the people of
this proud
nation is essentially beyond words. Contributing ot this small campaign is
more than
morally - and spiritually - the right thing to do. If there is any true
humanity left in
America, this organization will meet its modest goal.
-- Jeff
http://www.rense.com/general67/af.htm
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/
*****************************************************************
21 [du-list] Short report on the ICBUW-panel discussion on DU in
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:45:01 -0700
WISE/NIRS Nuclear Monitor 632, 15 July 2005
BRUSSELS: INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE TO BAN URANIUM
WEAPONS
The International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons (ICBUW) held a
conference at the European Parliament in Brussels on 23-24 June 2005 and
called on the European Parliament to implement its 2003 resolution on a
moratorium on the use of depleted uranium in European states. The
conference was sponsored by the European Parliament's Intergroup for
Peace Initiatives and also supported by several political parties including
the
Greens.
(632.5707) Laka Foundation - The programme for the two-day meeting
began with presentations from member organizations from Iraq, the U.S.,
the U.K., Japan, Germany, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands, each giving
an overview on depleted uranium (DU) developments in their countries in the
past year. Guests and Members of European Parliament (MEPs) were later
invited to take part in a panel debate on the issue in general.
Dr. Jawad Al-Ali, Head of the Sadr Teaching Hospital in Basra, Iraq,
reported on the rise of cancer casualties and congenital birth defects in the
Basra area - especially in areas polluted by DU. Dr. Al-Ali described the
continued spread of contamination and illustrated this using a detailed
map of the city of Basra, marked to show where DU was used in the 1991
Gulf War and during the 2003 war. The simple map showed how the areas
contaminated by increased from 21 sites following the 2003 war to 57 sites
to date. Vehicles and other contaminated equipment are moved from one
area by the coalition forces only to be dumped in another public location.
Meanwhile the Iraqi people, desperate for materials, strip the contaminated
vehicles for spare parts or to sell on the contaminated metals as scrap to
factories. As a result the DU is spread far and wide, contaminating homes
and exposing entire families to the risks of becoming poisoned.
Dr. Keith Baverstock, scientific researcher and the former Head of the
Radiological Protection Division of the World Health Organization (WHO),
explained the toxicological aspect of the cover-up on the hazards of DU.
Following detailed analysis of several ways in which DU oxide particles
could pose harm to the human body, Baverstock revealed three potential
risk routes in addition to the conventional radio toxicity caused by direct
irradiation (alpha radiation), namely, chemical geno toxicity, synergy
between radiation and chemical toxicities and the bystander route.
Unfortunately these scientific insights have failed to make any impact in the
corridors of power. The relevant and responsible bodies such as the WHO,
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.K. Royal Society,
the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and the
European Commission Article 31 Group have roundly ignored Baverstock's
findings thus far. Dr. Baverstock remains concerned at this lack of interest
and stated, "You may wonder, as I do, how such authoritative and
independent organizations, making ostensibly 'independent' assessments of
the situation can ignore all the evidence that exists in scientific
literature."
During his presentation, Baverstock also referred to recent studies on the
toxicity of nickel, which has similar levels of toxicity as DU. In contrast
with
DU and despite their similarities, this heavy metal (nickel) is considered to
be an established carcinogen.
Prof. Dr. Manfred Mohr moved the focus of the discussion on to international
law with its various branches: international humanitarian law, human rights
law, and environmental law. International law, he explained is not only about
articles, treaties and detailed norms, but also mostly about basic principles.
The precautionary principle being an excellent example of a basic principle
used in both international and national environmental law and also based in
the EU normative system. Prof. Mohr explained about the potential
opportunities for the law to be used to support campaigners views, adding
that the Draft Convention, which he wrote with a Polish colleague, could
play a vital role. The main goal of ICBUW is for this Draft Convention,
currently being negotiated upon with the UN and nation states, to be
adopted as a real Draft, open for signatures and ratification as has occurred
with other models like the Ottawa Treaty or the Chemical Weapons
Convention. It is important, Mohr declared, that all legal possibilities are
worked out in parallel given that they are not exclusive to each other. He
added, "we have to stress: ban means in our terms, in our perspective, not
to create the prohibition of the use of DU weaponry, which is already there,
but to abolish the weapon. And for this, you need to have a treaty,
otherwise it is not possible to get rid of certain weapons."
On behalf of EUROMIL, an umbrella organization of trade unions and
associations of military personnel, Mr. Emmanuel Jacob expressed support
for the goals of ICBUW - EUROMIL already urges governments to ban the
use of DU weapons. EUROMIL consists of 34 organizations from 22
European countries from Ireland to Russia, from Finland to Spain.
The panel discussion on the first day and the presentations and
discussions on the second day brought interesting issues to the surface
that will need to be explored in future debates. Avril McDonald, a lawyer
from the Dutch Asser Institute stated that she did not yet believe that the
case against DU is watertight, siting the apparent lack of epidemiological
research but did admit that the arguments against its use were convincing.
Dr. Baverstock responded that many chemicals have previously been
banned without ever being subject to epidemiological research.
Photo coverage of the conference is available at
www.bandepleteduranium.org
A full report of this conference will be published on the website in autumn.
Source and contact:
Henk van der Keur and Lizzy Bloem
Laka Foundation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
stichting Laka Laka foundation
documentatie en onderzoeks- documentation and research
centrum kernenergie centre on nuclear energy
Ketelhuisplein 43 Ketelhuisplein 43
1054 RD Amsterdam NL-1054 RD Amsterdam
tel: 020-6168294 Netherlands
fax: 020-6892179 tel: +31-20-6168294
fax: +31-20-6892179
www.laka.org
laka@antenna.nl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
*****************************************************************
22 NRC: NRC to Hold Public Meeting August 2 at Eunice, N. M., to Discuss Environmental
Impacts and Safety Evaluation for LES
News Release - Region II - 2005-03
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs, Region II
61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, GA 30303
No. II-05-033 July 18, 2005
CONTACT: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416
Roger D. Hannah (404) 562-4417 E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has scheduled a public
meeting for Aug. 2 in Eunice, N.M., to discuss the results of
the agencys Safety Evaluation Report and Final Environmental
Impact Statement for a gas centrifuge uranium enrichment
facility proposed to be constructed near Eunice by Louisiana
Energy Services.
The meeting, which will begin at 7:00 p.m. (local time) in the
Eunice Community Center, 1115 Avenue I, in Eunice, is designed
to provide an opportunity for interested members of the public
to hear a summary of, and to ask questions about, the NRC review
of the LES application as presented in the two reports.
The SER and FEIS document the NRC staffs findings during the
safety/security and environmental reviews of the LES application
to build the National Enrichment Facility.
Both documents are available to the public on the NRC website at
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/.
For further information, please contact Timothy C. Johnson, Mail
Stop: T-8F42, Special Projects Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle
Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001. Telephone (301)415-7299, or E-mail tcj@nrc.gov.
Last revised Monday, July 18, 2005
*****************************************************************
23 Leaf Chronicle: Survivors, families have trouble collecting for exposure to radiation
www.theleafchronicle.com
Monday, July 18, 2005
'Birdcage' secrets stymie payments
By CHANTAL ESCOTO
The Leaf-Chronicle
Robert Smith/The Leaf-Chronicle
Bobby Murphy and his wife, Martha, look over stacks of paperwork
that prove his father, Harry "Dell" Murphy, worked at the
Clarksville Base nuclear storage facility between 1946 and 1952.
Jo Anne Binkley, right, also says she has proof her father
worked at the "Birdcage," but both Binkley and Mr. Murphy's
claims are being denied for insufficient evidence by the United
States Department of Labor.
TO GET INVOLVED
+ A "Birdcage" meeting will be held 10 a.m. to noon, July 30, at
the Clarksville-Montgomery County Library, 350 Pageant Lane, for
those who want to share or gather information with other family
members about compensation.
+ For information, call Bobby Murphy at 648-0314.
Robert Smith/The Leaf-Chronicle
Stacks of payroll stubs and other paperwork that proves Bobby
Murphy's father worked at the "Birdcage" still is not enough to
receive compensation through the Department of Labor.
Many people who worked Clarksville Base nuclear storage facility
at the Fort Campbell half a century ago held on to its inner
workings even after their death.
But to numerous family members and the few workers who are still
living, those secrets have come back to haunt them.
Sometimes called the Cold War veterans, thousands of workers who
built or handled radiation or plutonium during the '50s and '60s
discovered years later they were diagnosed with cancer or other
illnesses associated with radiation exposure.
The United States government developed a plan to compensate the
exposed worker or the workers' families with a lump sum of
$150,000. Millions of dollars have been paid out across the
country, including some workers at the Oak Ridge plant.
But none of the 238 claims filed by workers and families of
workers at the Clarksville Base — also known as the "Birdcage" —
have been approved.
This baffles Bobby Murphy, whose father worked at the
Clarksville Base from 1946 to 1952 as an electrician, helping to
wire the machines used by the nuclear scientists.
"He couldn't come home and discuss it. If he did, he'd have gone
to (jail)," Murphy said about his father Harry "Dell" Murphy.
The elder Murphy died in 1982 of prostate cancer at the age of
69. Bobby Murphy said his father's disease was caused by
materials he was in contact with while working in the
underground bunkers.
"He didn't know what he was messing with. The scientists knew.
It's not like it was something you could wash off your hands,"
Murphy said about the radioactive material and other liquids.
He recalled hearing about the "pickled bulldogs" stored at the
Clarksville Base in in big glass jars filled with formaldehyde.
"They had these test animals that came from Oak Ridge. There's a
possibility he could have gotten (sick) from that," he said.
Finding proof
But because everything at the Birdcage was kept secret, people
were afraid to talk and little or no records were kept. Even the
workers' paychecks didn't disclose where they worked. The
paychecks had only the name of the contractor.
Many believe the lack of available information is the reason the
compensation claims are being rejected.
"Personally, I think they're waiting for these people to die so
they don't have to pay," said Jo Anne Binkley, whose father
worked as a nuclear material handler at the Birdcage and died
from lung cancer in 1993.
She made her claim on Oct. 30, 2001, and is continually getting
denial letters or requests for more proof.
The U.S. Department of Labor, the agency responsible for
investigating the claims, said the reason no money has been paid
to Birdcage employees is because of insufficient evidence and
the illnesses reported are not covered under radiation.
"The denials are for noncovered conditions and 15 cases have
been returned from the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health with dose reconstructions that were below 50
percent and thus denied," according to an e-mail statement from
DOL.
Dose reconstruction is a time-consuming scientific procedure
that determines radiation exposure. The rate of exposure
establishes how much compensation someone would get depending on
how much they were exposed.
"There are 51 cases at NIOSH awaiting dose reconstruction."
But that's not a good enough answer for Binkley.
"I can understand trying to weed those people out who didn't
work there but when I have the proof, I don't see the problem,"
she said. "If the money has been appropriated, what are they
doing with it. I would like to see the people who were sick get
compensated."
Getting help
Murphy, Binkley and many other families say they are frustrated
and wonder why — even with pay stubs, medical records and
affidavits from people who worked for the various contractors —
they can't get approved.
U.S. legislators representing Tennessee, including Sens. Lamar
Alexander and Bill Frist and Reps. John Tanner and Marsha
Blackburn all say they're looking into the problem by trying to
make the paperwork requirements less restrictive.
"This is a serious matter for a great many Tennesseans and
Americans," Alexander said in an e-mail statement. "We should be
treating our Cold War veterans with the same respect that they
have treated our country and their employment."
Chantal Escotocovers military affairs and can be reached at
245-0216 or by e-mail at chantalescoto@theleafchronicle.com.
Originally published July 18, 2005
Copyright ©2004 The Leaf-Chronicle. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
24 asahi.com: Mental trauma identified in A-bomb victims
07/18/2005
The Asahi Shimbun
Perhaps tens of thousands of hibakusha vividly recall their
suffering in the immediate aftermath of the blinding
atomic-induced flashes that reduced two Japanese cities to
rubble in 1945.
About 90 percent of respondents to an Asahi Shimbun survey
conducted prior to the 60th anniversary of the bombings of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki also said they continue to worry about
their health.
The survey, based on responses from 13,204 hibakusha, found that
the more acute the victim's symptoms were 60 years ago, the
greater their continuing anguish.
Those who continue to be haunted by their experiences account
for 80 percent of respondents.
In addition, the survey found that 50 percent of respondents
blame both the Japanese and U.S. governments for the bombings.
Only 28 percent pinned all responsibility on the United States.
Fifty-nine percent feared nuclear weapons would be used again.
Questionnaires were distributed to about 40,000 atomic bomb
survivors. With 13,204 people replying, the response rate was
about 32 percent.
The average age of the respondents was 72.4. The survey
comprised 51 questions covering their physical and mental
health, and the state of their current lives. It allowed
respondents to select from multiple answers and add comments.
Asked how often they recall their experiences immediately
following the bombings, 23 percent said they "often" have such
flashbacks and 53 percent indicated that they "sometimes" do.
Nearly 60 percent of those who were under 10 years old at the
time of the bombings stated that they "often" or "sometimes"
recall such memories.
Among those who experienced acute symptoms immediately after the
bombings on Aug. 6 and 9, 1945, and up to the end of that year,
88 percent said they "often" or "sometimes" have flashbacks
about their experiences.
In comparison, 71 percent of those who said they did not display
acute radiation symptoms after the bombings indicated they often
or sometimes have such memories.
Asked whether they worry about their physical health, 45 percent
of respondents said they are "always" concerned, while another
45 percent said "sometimes."
Thirty-five percent of respondents said they had experienced
acute radiation symptoms, such as bleeding or hair loss, up to
the end of 1945. Of these, 59 percent said they are always
concerned about their health, considerably more than the 32
percent in the group who had not developed acute symptoms in the
latter half of 1945.
Asked about the health of their children and grandchildren, 57
percent said they are concerned.
In another question, 20 percent said that they have faced
discrimination as a result of being labeled hibakusha.
Fifty-seven percent said the government should enshrine in
legislation its three non-nuclear principles of not possessing,
manufacturing or allowing nuclear weapons into Japan.(IHT/Asahi:
July 18,2005)
+ The Asahi Shimbun Company
*****************************************************************
25 DOL: Office of Workers' compensation
FR Doc 05-14020
[Federal Register: July 18, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 136)] [Rules
and Regulations] [Page 41339-41340] From the Federal Register
Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr18jy05-16]
[[Page 41339]]
Part III Department of Labor
Office of Workers' Compensation Programs
20 CFR Parts 1 and 30 Performance of Functions; Claims for
Compensation Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness
Compensation Program Act of 2000, as Amended; Final Rule [[Page
41340]]
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of Workers' Compensation Programs 20
CFR Parts 1 and 30 RIN 1215-AB51
Performance of Functions; Claims for Compensation Under the
Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of
2000, as Amended AGENCY: Office of Workers' Compensation
Programs, Employment Standards Administration, Labor. ACTION:
Interim final rule; compliance with information collection
requirements.
SUMMARY: The Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) is
announcing that a revision of a currently approved collection of
information has been approved by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, for the
Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of
2000, as amended. This notice announces both the OMB approval
number and expiration date for this collection of information.
DATES: Effective Date: The interim final rule published at 70 FR
33590 continues to be effective as of June 8, 2005.
Compliance Date: As of July 18, 2005, affected parties must
comply with the new information collection requirements in Sec.
Sec. 30.102, 30.231, 30.232, 30.806, 30.905 and 30.907 of the
interim final rule, which have been approved as a revision of a
currently approved collection by OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shelby Hallmark, Director,
Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Employment Standards
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-3524, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Telephone:
202-693-0036 (this is not a toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 8, 2005, OWCP published an
interim final rule governing its administration of the Energy
Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000,
as amended (EEOICPA), 42 U.S.C. 7384 et seq., and requested OMB
approval under the PRA of a revision of a currently approved
collection for the EEOICPA. The new information collection
requirements that needed OMB approval are found in Sec. Sec.
30.102, 30.231, 30.232, 30.806, 30.905 and 30.907 of the interim
final rule.
On June 20, 2005, OMB approved the requested revision to a
currently approved collection for the EEOICPA. This particular
collection now consists of the following forms/reporting
requirements: EE-1, Claim for Benefits Under the Energy Employees
Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act; EE-2, Claim for
Survivor Benefits Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness
Compensation Program Act; EE-3, Employment History for a Claim
Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation
Program Act; EE-4, Employment History Affidavit for a Claim Under
the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program
Act; EE-7, Medical Requirements Under the Energy Employees
Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act; EE-8, letter to
claimant requesting information for lung cancer claim; EE-9,
letter to claimant requesting information for skin cancer claim;
EE-10, Claim for Additional Wage-Loss and/or Impairment Under the
Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act;
EE-20, letter requesting information needed to pay benefits on an
accepted claim; 20 CFR 30.106, employment information requested
from an alternate source; 20 CFR 30.112, supplemental employment
evidence required when an alleged employment history cannot be
verified; 20 CFR 30.207, 30.215, 30.222, 30.226 and 30.232(c),
supplemental medical evidence required to establish that an
injury, illness or disability was sustained as a consequence of
either an occupational illness under Part B of EEOICPA or a
covered illness under Part E of EEOICPA; 20 CFR 30.806, alternate
evidence of wage-loss; and 20 CFR 30.905 and 30.907, medical
evidence required to establish compensable permanent impairment.
The control number assigned to this information collection by
OMB is 1215-0197. The approval for this information collection
will expire on August 31, 2007.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 11th day of July, 2005. Shelby
Hallmark, Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs,
Employment Standards Administration. [FR Doc. 05-14020 Filed
7-15-05; 8:45 am]
*****************************************************************
26 Guardian Unlimited Report: Citizens Didn't Get High Radiation
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday July 18, 2005 3:16 AM
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) - A 13-year federal study has found that
people living near a site that supplied the nation's nuclear
arsenal with plutonium for decades did not receive major doses
of radiation during the Cold War.
The report said few people living near the Savannah River Site
had a substantially higher cancer risk from pollution between
the early 1950s and 1992, when atomic weapons production
reactors shut down.
Scientists used 50,000 boxes of records, some of which had been
classified for decades, to reconstruct chemical and radiation
releases during the Cold War. The study began in 1992.
It found that people born in 1955 probably received higher
radiation doses than those born in the 1960s. But the report
said there was a less than a 1 percent chance someone born in
1955 and living near the site would die from cancer related to
the nearby nuclear facility.
``This has been a long time coming,'' said C.M. Wood with the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. ``We have learned
that there were not significant doses to the public'' from the
site near Aiken, S.C., about 60 miles southwest of Columbia.
The findings released Friday will probably end a research
project on pollution and its health effects in South Carolina
and Georgia, Wood said.
The CDC hired a contractor for the project, but will not
continue the work unless major new information is discovered in
the next few months, Wood said.
But atomic engineer Arjun Makhijani, a critic of federal nuclear
sites, said it is hard to believe people's health has not been
threatened because the Savannah River is a source of drinking
water and used for recreation, he said.
``Discharges from the Savannah site do pose a risk to the
downstream population,'' said Makhijani, who has not reviewed
the study.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
27 Idaho Nuke story
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:45:33 -0700
http://www.hcn.org/multiview.jsp#number47
Idaho slated to get hotter
June 27, 2005
It shouldn't really be a surprise that a new nuclear facility has been
aimed at the West. This time one to produce plutonium in Idaho, and
according to the New York Times, slated to generate 50,000 drums of
radioactive and hazardous waste. Which we'll figure out how to dispose of
later... somewhere else in the West, most likely.
Below are a few HCN stories on nukes in the West, culled from our archive:
We aimed at Russia and Hit the West
"The only victims of U.S. nuclear arms since World War II have been our own
people." -- House Investigations Subcommittee (1980)
New Mexico goes head-to-head with a nuclear juggernaut
Los Alamos National Laboratory is booming, revitalized by a new era of
weapons development but the state of New Mexico wants the lab to clean up
its old Cold War-era messes before it starts making new ones.
Courting the Bomb
The Bush administration’s new nuclear bomb factory is looking for a home —
and the leaders of Carlsbad, New Mexico, are determined to give it one.
Got a Comment? : PermaLink Posted by:Paolo Bacigalupi
*****************************************************************
28 Ra226 off site in Piketon, Oho
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:50:26 -0700
Release July 16th, 2006..
=============================================================
Vina Colley & Ewan Todd
"A Citizen's Guide to Monitor Radioactivity"
http://www.isar.org/docs/GuideMay2005.pdf
"A Citizen's Guide to Monitor Radioactivity", in
Portsmouth on Friday July 16,2005 Norm Buske is with The RadioActivist Campaign
(TRAC) and Do Lee is with ISAR: Resources for Environmental Activists.
The report is based on the work of Dr. Sergey Pashenko and his wife
Lena, my friends from Russia, both with Siberian Scientists for Global
Responsibility, who started with this project in 2003 and finished in
2005. Sergey and Lena had help from many here in the USA.
On his visit to the Piketon site, Dr. Pashenko identified a sample of
"hot" foam in Big Run Creek that had levels of beta emission that was
hundreds of times higher than background levels. PRESS announced this
discovery in 2003, after which USEC took samples of the foam, with the
oversight of the Ohio EPA. In February 2005, the DOE wrote to me,
explaining that their analysis of the foam "did not indicate the
presence of radionuclides above normal background levels." USEC
produced the DOE letter to the NRC as evidence to discredit Dr.
Pashenko's results in the PRESS intervention against USEC. However,
Norm Buske spotted that the numbers quoted in the DOE letter didn't
support the DOE conclusion that the foam was normal. Rather, the
numbers supported Dr. Pashenko's conclusion that the foam was "hot."
Norm Buske's analysis is on page 32 of the Guide (PDF page 33).
Further, Norm Buske interpreted Dr. Pashenko's data as showing that
the beta emitter in the foam is likely to be Radium 226, which is also
a source of neutron emission. Norm speculated that this might
indicate new nuclear weapon production at the site.
We are still waiting for the media report of this big story. To allow
gross beta sources to flow off site in this community is a criminal
act. We can no longer pretend that there is no off-site radiation. We
are outraged that our government is letting this happen. It was also
clear that the Paducah plant needs to be investigated.
After Norm Buske's presentation, PRESS Technical Co-ordinator Ewan
Todd showed a few maps, indicating the pathways from the atomic
reservation to the the location of the "hot" foam. He also discussed
the progress of the PRESS litigation against USEC. The NRC has
granted PRESS standing to intervene in USEC's license application
proceeding. USEC is applying for a license to operate a huge uranium
enrichment plant, known as the American Centrifuge Plant (ACP). PRESS
is intervening to argue that the NRC should deny the license
application. Also, there is a second intervention against USEC by
Geoffrey Sea, who is concerned about the giant Hopewell monuments
close to the planned site of the ACP.
www.nnwj.com
*****************************************************************
29 AU ABC: Nuclear research body backs NT waste dump
Australian Broadcasting Corporation Online">
(ACST)Monday, 18 July 2005. 13:02 (AEDT)Monday, 18 July 2005.
The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation
(ANSTO) says nuclear waste to be stored in the Northern
Territory could take thousands of years to decay.
The Federal Government has singled out three sites for a dump -
one south of Katherine and two near Alice Springs.
ANSTO chief of operations Ron Cameron says some waste has a long
life and will take tens of thousands of years to reduce to safe
levels.
He says eventually the radiation emitted does drop off.
"The intention of all of this is that with a certain passage of
time, 300 or 400 years, the majority of activity has decayed
down to what is just normal background levels," he said.
"So that's why a store is a very suitable thing for most of
these materials because it just maintains institutional control
while the activity decays away."
Mr Cameron says no high-level waste will be stored at the
nuclear dump.
He says "low-level" waste like contaminated gloves and clothing
will be stored in drums.
He says more radioactive "intermediate level" waste will be
encased in concrete and then also put in drums.
Mr Cameron has dismissed suggestions that radioactive spent fuel
rods from Sydney's Lucas Heights reactor could end up at the
facility.
"No there is no high-level waste produced in Australia. Even the
spent fuel rods are not classed as high-level waste," he said.
"But they are actually sent overseas and it is our continuing
intention to send overseas.
"So what we receive back is just the waste from reprocessing and
that is intermediate-level waste."
Mr Cameron says environmental impact studies will assess each
site against a range of criteria.
"The ease of transport to the site, the suitability of the
particular area, the ability to secure the area, how it might be
operated over the next 40, 50 years until close," he said.
"So it looks at criteria which are both geological, technical
and transport-related."
*****************************************************************
30 Las Vegas RJ: Titus to run for governor in '06
Monday, July 18, 2005
Senate minority leader announces in Minden that she'll pursue
Democratic nomination
By CHRISTINA ALMEIDA
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Dina Titus
Lawmaker joins what is expected to be a crowded field to succeed
Gov. Kenny Guinn
Nevada Senate Minority Leader Dina Titus announced her candidacy
for governor Sunday, pledging to reach out to voters across the
state and conduct an inclusive campaign.
Titus, a Las Vegas Democrat who has served as minority leader
since 1993, officially launched her campaign Sunday evening at
an appearance in Minden, in rural Douglas County.
"Part of the message in this campaign is that we should be one
state, not liberal versus conservative, not rural versus urban,"
Titus told The Associated Press shortly before her scheduled
announcement.
Titus joins what is expected to be a crowded field in the race
to replace Republican Gov. Kenny Guinn, who faces term limits in
2006.
Her likely opposition in the Democratic primary will be Assembly
Speaker Richard Perkins of Henderson. Henderson Mayor Jim Gibson
is also mulling a run for the Democratic nomination.
On the Republican side, state Sen. Bob Beers of Las Vegas and
Lt. Gov. Lorraine Hunt have both announced their candidacies.
Rep. Jim Gibbons is considered an early front-runner, although
he has yet to make a formal announcement.
Others considering a run, largely at the urging of Guinn, are
University Chancellor Jim Rogers and Reno Mayor Bob Cashell.
Titus, a political science professor at UNLV, said she has the
integrity, experience and the commitment to be governor.
"I'm a straight talker, and that's what people like," Titus
said. "I'm a fighter. You've got to fight the federal government
on Yucca Mountain. You have to fight other states for water."
She said she plans to run an aggressive campaign that will touch
voters everywhere in Nevada. "I want to make a statement that
this is going to be a statewide campaign," she said. "We're
going to aggressively campaign in each county, starting in
Minden."
Titus also will announce her candidacy in Reno this morning and
at 3 p.m. in Las Vegas in the Cambridge Community Center, 3930
Cambridge St., Room A.
Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal
*****************************************************************
31 RIA Novosti: Nuclear components storage facility costs $80 million
19/07/2005
MOSCOW/TOKYO, July 18 (RIA Novosti) - The construction of a
storage facility for the components of nuclear reactors from
decommissioned submarines in the Far East will cost about $80
million, Victor Akhunov, a Russian Federal Atomic Energy
(Rosatom) official, told RIA Novosti.
Russia has already started the construction of a storage
facility for decommissioned nuclear submarines of the Pacific
fleet in the Razboinik Bay (Far East).
"The facility has been under construction for a while," the
Rosatom official said. "Its estimated cost is about $80 million.
However, the funds allocated from the federal budget will not
allow us to finish the project quickly. That is why we offered
the Japanese government to participate in the project."
"Japanese officials will decide whether to participate in the
project by the fall of this year," Akhunov said.
He also said 195 nuclear submarines had been decommissioned. A
hundred and twenty of them have been dismantled into blocs
consisting of three compartments. In the future, the reactor
compartments will be cut out of the blocs already without
nuclear fuel and placed in a special storage facility on the
shore.
Sources in Japan's foreign ministry told RIA Novosti that Japan
would help Russia build the storage facility near Vladivostok,
the administrative center of the maritime region on the west
coast of the Sea of Japan.
Japanese diplomats said their government would make an official
decision in the next few days, following Katsuyuki Kawai's, the
Japanese Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs, visit to
the Far East on July 9-11.
© 2005 "RIA Novosti"
*****************************************************************
32 Green Left: Nuke waste dump plan opposed
www.greenleft.org.au
DARWIN — There has been widespread opposition to federal science
minister Brendan Nelson’s July 15 announcement of plans for a
nuclear waste dump in the Northern Territory.
The plans involve storing nuclear waste from Sydney’s Lucas
Heights reactor on defence land in one of three locations in the
NT. The government’s previous plan to build the dump in South
Australia was defeated by a strong public campaign.
The NT Environment Centre’s Gary Scott told media that the dump
is not a foregone conclusion. Nelson’s announcement has also met
with opposition from both the NT ALP and the Country Liberal
Party. The announcement rescinds the promise made by the federal
government prior to last year’s federal election that there
would be no nuclear dump on mainland Australia.
Kathy Newnam
From Green Left Weekly, July 20, 2005.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.
Authorised by K. Miller, 23 Abercrombie St, Chippendale, NSW
*****************************************************************
33 AU ABC: Waste dump plan draws mixed reaction -
18/07/2005
"Australian Broadcasting Corporation Online">
Monday, 18/07/2005
There has been a mixed response among landholders to a Federal
Government proposal to store radioactive waste in the Northern
Territory.
Federal Science Minister Brendan Nelson has announced three
preferred sites, including two near Alice Springs that are used
by the Jindalee Over the Horizon Radar System.
The Jindalee holding was excised from Alcoota Station and the
station's Chris Nott says he cannot see it being a good waste
site.
"At risk of contaminating the watertable and the soil
structure, it's a sandy type soil, sand over clay," he said.
"[It is] cattle production country and there is also a
population of people around this area. A little community at
Jindalee itself, pastoralists and then you have got Harts Range
community, the community on Alcoota.
"I would have thought there would be an element of risk in
that."
*****************************************************************
34 AU ABC: NSW shires want safety guarantee on nuclear waste route.
18/07/2005. ABC News Online
"Australian Broadcasting Corporation Online">
Update: Monday, July 18, 2005. 8:00pm (AEST)
The Federal Government is under pressure to release details of a
transport route for nuclear waste travelling from Lucas Heights
to the Northern Territory.
The Shires Association of New South Wales says it wants more
information on which rural roads have been earmarked for the job.
A new radioactive waste facility will be located at a
Commonwealth-owned site in the Northern Territory.
The president of the Shires Association, Col Sullivan, says
there is no doubt that the waste will be transported through
country New South Wales.
He opposes the idea and believes most rural councils would
object to the proposal.
"I'd be looking to see what their plans are and if they're
going by road, as I've said, from Sydney to the North then
they're going to pass through most of New South Wales somewhere
and that would worry me greatly," he said.
"Most rural communities would object to it strongly I would
think. We want some guarantees about this because the
possibility of a major accident would always be on our minds
otherwise."
*****************************************************************
35 The Signal: Perchlorate Bill Passes House
Monday, July 18 2005
Josh Premako Signal Staff Writer
Santa Clarita will have more money to put toward solving
the perchlorate problem, thanks to legislation approved by the
U.S. House of Representatives.
The Water Resources Development Act of 2005 passed the House
on Thursday by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 406-14. The
legislation increases the current authorization level for
perchlorate contamination studies in Santa Clarita.
The act drew praise from Congressman Howard “Buck” McKeon,
who labored to increase the funding level for perchlorate
studies in the city to $10 million, up from $7 million attained
as a result of past appropriations requests.
“Santa Clarita is one of the fastest growing communities in
California, making it critical to have a safe and plentiful
source of water for all of our residents,” McKeon, R-Santa
Clarita, said in a statement. “I will continue to work hard to
ensure that our groundwater is completely free from this harmful
chemical.”
A component of rocket fuel known to cause health problems,
perchlorate has been discovered at several former industrial
sites in Southern California.
At the Whittaker-Bermite site, where munitions were produced
for decades, the spread of perchlorate has forced the closure of
several local wells and stalled the progress of the proposed
Riverpark housing development.
Earlier this month, McKeon introduced the Eastern Santa
Clara River Basin Act, which would increase the authorization
level for perchlorate contamination studies by an additional $10
million, and authorization to clean it up by $25 million.
The legislation is being considered in the Water Resources
and Environment Subcommittee of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee.
©2005 The-Signal.com - Site powered with DynamicBase by
ActiveQuest, Inc.
*****************************************************************
36 www.GovExec.com: Nuclear Reaction
(7/18/05)
By Beth Dickey bdickey@govexec.com
Four months after the revelation that scientific documentation
for the nation's first nuclear waste dump may have been faked,
Judy Treichel and Steve Frishman figured they would be dancing
on the grave of the Yucca Mountain Project. Instead, the two
Nevada activists still are trying to bury the proposal.
Summertime is scramble time. There are public hearings to
attend, lawsuits to press, dollars to raise and federal
bureaucracies to fight as the Energy Department continues its
pursuit of a license to entomb 77,000 tons of radioactive
materials beneath the 1,200- foot-high ridge 100 miles northwest
of Las Vegas. "The e-mails should have put this thing down,"
says Treichel, executive director of the Nevada Nuclear Waste
Task Force, a nonprofit organization that has waged an 18-year
battle against the project.
The e-mails of which she speaks were written between 1998 and
2000. The messages appear to indicate that one or more U.S.
Geological Survey hydrologists fabricated quality assurances on
computer models used to determine how much water could seep
through rock in Yucca Mountain, corrode the underground storage
containers and carry off dangerous radioactive particles.
"I've made up the dates and names," one worker confesses in a
March 30, 2000, message that continues, "If they need more
proof, I will be happy to make up more stuff." It's found in a
90-page collection of heavily redacted e-mails the Energy and
Interior departments released to Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., in
March. A few mention "fudge factors" or end with "destroy this
message."
Still other messages suggest there was a culture of
intimidation in which scientists doing the environmental
analysis were being pressured to provide the right answer and
not find the scientific truth. The mere hint of impropriety is
enough to convince Frishman, a geologist and statepaid
consultant, that the opposition has been right all along about
the likelihood of contamination reaching Nevada's water table.
Yucca Mountain was chosen because it is supposed to be able to
isolate highly radioactive waste for at least 10,000 years, but
opponents argue the protection might not last even a few
hundred. "If you have workers falsifying any part of their work
or ignoring results management doesn't want to have, then this
goes right to the heart of the safety question," Frishman says.
It's not the first time quality assurance at Yucca Mountain has
gotten a bad rap. The Government Accountability Office last year
detailed persistent problems that could delay licensing and
operation.
The e-mails came to light during a document review the Energy
Department must complete to get the license. The contractor,
Bechtel SAIC Co., says it discovered them in December but didn't
notify the department until March. Energy Secretary Samuel
Bodman told the public on March 16. "This behavior indicated in
the e-mails is completely unacceptable," Bodman said, promising
to investigate the data and correct any deficiencies. His
disclosure prompted criminal probes by the Energy and Interior
departments' inspectors general and the FBI.
The Government Reform Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce and
Agency Organization, which Porter chairs, was inquiring, too. "I
want to make sure there hasn't been undue pressure by DOE or
USGS officials to get the job done at any cost," Porter told
Government Executive. "We also want to find out if this is a
culture that spreads [beyond] the Yucca Mountain Project . . .
because DOE has control over nuclear power plants and homeland
security." He had subpoenaed the principal author of the e-mails
to testify at a hearing June 29.
USGS hydrologist Joseph Hevesi denied falsifying anything.
Instead, he said, he was venting frustration over quality
assurance procedures that were being developed at the same time
crucial research was being done. Hevesi said that he, too, is
"somewhat horrified" when he reads the messages now, but
insisted the science is sound. "I have completely rethought how
I use the whole e-mail system and how I communicate," he said.
The scandal might have put the site's future in serious doubt,
but the government is resolved to see it through. Energy has
concluded that the water flow studies are sound, but Yucca
Mountain Deputy Director W. John Arthur told Nuclear Regulatory
Commission staff that the information will be "replaced, redone
or remediated" for the application.
The application was to have been submitted last December.
Preparations for a 2010 opening have been set back at least two
years by problems, including the documentation flap, budget cuts
and a federal court ruling against an insufficient Environmental
Protection Agency radiation standard last year. Also, in
January, Energy disclosed that workers who drilled tunnels in
the mountain might have been exposed to toxic silica dust.
Some say the e-mail revelations will make it more difficult for
the Energy Department to meet at least one requirement - the
test of character and fitness to be a licensee. Meanwhile,
pro-Yucca forces are grouping for a campaign in more than 40
states where consumers are paying to send spent fuel to the
mountain, and Nevada is spending roughly $1.5 million a year
trying to stave off the pending deliveries.
In June, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved $577
million for the project, $74 million less than the
administration's request for 2006. Unlike an earlier House bill,
it didn't include money for a site to store waste temporarily
while Yucca's problems are being solved. The House bill fully
funded Yucca with $651 million and added $10 million for an
interim dump.
©2005 by National Journal Group Inc. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
37 asahi.com: Japan must press for a nuclear-free world
POINT OF VIEW / Takashi Hiraoka /
07/18/2005
The Asahi Shimbun
In the 60 years since the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki demonstrated in horrific detail the ultimate tragedy of
nuclear weapons, the world has drastically changed its views
about nuclear brinkmanship.
More countries now possess nuclear weapons.
And research on developing smaller nuclear weapons and more
destructive ones continues apace.
This is happening despite the fact that the number of people
exposed to radiation from nuclear tests and depleted uranium
shells has drastically increased.
Nuclear black marketNow we are faced with the threat of nuclear
weapons spreading around the world through the black market.
These facts show that contrary to our most confident hopes,
nuclear weapons are not going away.
Instead, their danger to humanity is increasing.
When the Cold War ended, the world believed the threat of
another world war had diminished. As a result, the major powers
lost their incentive to work together to create a better world
by ridding the world of nuclear weapons.
Then, the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States
ensured that efforts to advance nuclear disarmament would be
brushed aside.
In international politics, nuclear weapons are still seen as a
deterrent to outside threats. Thus some countries are anxious to
acquire this capability.
Meanwhile, despite the unprecedented destruction caused by the
nuclear bombs dropped on us, Japan continues to stick with the
security provided by the U.S. nuclear umbrella, even as our
nation officially opposes the idea of possessing or testing
nuclear weapons.
To escape this contradiction, Japan must extricate itself from
the U.S. nuclear umbrella without undermining the valued
friendly relationship between the two countries.
However, faced with the prospect of North Korea possessing the
bomb, many Japanese don't see how this country can feel safe
without the protection of the United States.
I believe North Korea's nuclear threat is mostly propaganda.
Still, if that rogue nation were to gain nuclear weapons,
security in East Asia would be seriously compromised.
To prevent that, the world must persuade North Korea to give up
its quest for nukes. The best way to do that is through
U.S.-North Korea dialogue.
In addition, Japan must abandon its dependence on the U.S.
nuclear umbrella and lead the way toward building an
international and regional security framework that encourages
countries to reduce their dependence on nuclear weapons.
Our government should also devise ways to protect our freedom
and safety without nuclear weapons. It must encourage public
debate on how to accomplish this goal, work to set up a
Northeast Asian nuclear-free zone and help create and sign a
treaty to ban pre-emptive nuclear strikes.
To create such a Northeast Asian nuclear-free zone requires the
joint efforts of the United States, Russia, China, South Korea,
North Korea and Japan. The most realistic approach would be to
use the ongoing six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear
programs to start discussing the idea.
U.S. resistance
As a precedent, the five Central Asian nations of Kazakhstan,
Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyz and Turkmenistan are expected to
sign a treaty to create a nuclear-free zone in Central Asia in
September.
Since the political situation in that region is unstable, we
must wait and see if their plan materializes. If it does, it is
sure to propel the move to advance a similar initiative in
Northeast Asia.
Of course, the United States, which has proclaimed its right to
first-strike capability, is expected to put up strong resistance
to signing any treaty to ban pre-emptive nuclear strikes.
But as a country that saw great loss of life from being bombed
not once, but twice, Japan must do its utmost to persuade the
United States to accept a ban on striking first with nuclear
weapons.
Instead of taking the easy way out by relying on the United
States for protection, the government, which repeatedly stresses
Japan's position as "the only nation that underwent atomic
bombings," should seriously tackle Japan's security problem
while keeping a close eye on the moves of Asian countries.
Last May in New York, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review
Conference ended with little positive result. So it appears it
is now up to us-nongovernmental organizations and ordinary
citizens-to tackle the vital mission of preventing the spread of
nuclear weapons.
Japan could cooperate with NGOs to develop an unprecedented
policy "to realize a world without nuclear weapons," and its
efforts would be recognized internationally as contributing to
world peace.
Sixty years after the atomic bombings, Prime Minister Junichiro
Koizumi continues to visit Yasukuni Shrine-which enshrines the
nation's war dead, including Class-A war criminals-shrugging off
the past as something we should not cling to.
Yet the prime minister and the politicians who support his
visits have yet to spend much time reflecting on all the pain
and sadness that Japan's past actions caused so many people.
Koizumi tells us he is praying for peace when he visits Yasukuni
Shrine. If he is indeed serious about wanting peace, the very
least he should do is stop supporting war.
Japan must regain trust
To that end, Koizumi should withdraw the Self-Defense Forces
from Iraq, reduce the number and size of U.S. military bases in
Japan and work to ensure that nuclear weapons are abolished
around the world.
In the long run, it will be actions like these that will dispel
anti-Japanese sentiment among our Asian neighbors, win back
trust and rebuild Japan's good standing in the world.
* * *
The author is a former mayor of Hiroshima. He is now head of an
association that promotes community-building efforts in the
Chugoku region.(IHT/Asahi: July 18,2005)
[Copyright Asahi Shimbun. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
38 [du-list] DU cylinders: Plant construction falls behind
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:50:20 -0700
July 16, 2005
Plant construction falls behind
PIKETON
By JEFF BARRON, PDT Staff Writer
Feds say DUF6 project lags 12 to 14 months
Construction on a building to convert nuclear waste to a
more stable form at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant is 12 to 14
months behind schedule, a Department of Energy official said on Thursday.
Portsmouth/Paducah Project Manager Bill Murphie said the
delay came because Uranium Disposition Services was late in submitting
design plans to the DOE for final approval.
UDS will use the building to convert depleted uranium
hexaflouride (DUF6) into uranium oxide for disposal or reuse. Hundreds of
cylinders of DUF6 sit in a yard at the plant, including those shipped from
Oak Ridge, Tenn.
“It (delay) is becoming a sore point with the
department,” Murphie said at a DOE public meeting at the Ohio State
University Endeavor Center. “Some of it is UDS’ fault, some of it is the
department’s fault, and some of it is beyond anyone’s control.”
He cited weather problems, soil problems and issues with
other contractors as uncontrollable delays.
However, Murphie said the DOE could approve the plans in
the next few weeks. The DOE will continue to monitor the process once the
design is approved, he said.
“DOE will be looking over their shoulder to make sure
the construction (timetable) is not like the design phase,” Murphie said.
“The past will not be a reflection of the future.”
Murphie also talked about accomplishments of the past
six months at the diffusion plant, including:
• Completing the removal of 8,100 tons of scrap metal.
Murphie said that is more metal than is in the Eiffel Tower.
• Shipped 1,920 containers of nuclear waste for off-site
disposal.
• Completed the shipment of 368 containers from the
cleanup of the enrichment plant.
• Received Ohio Environmental Protection Agency approval
for groundwater treatment in one section of the site.
The DOE has operated the plant on cold standby status
for almost five years. That means the plant has been kept in a state of
readiness to enrich uranium should the need arise.
But cold standby will end Sept. 30. The DOE will then
begin the decontamination and decommission process.
The DOE owns the plant and leases it to the United
States Enrichment Corp. USEC plans to begin a new way of enriching uranium
by the end of the decade. The DOE will decommission areas of the plant that
USEC will not use.
Murphie said the decommission process will mean the
addition of jobs.
“I don’t want to be accused of saying there won’t be a
change,” he said. “You have skill mixes and crafts that have to change. But
in terms of total employment, we’re on a downward curve now within the
program. But I think this will be an opportunity for us to see some
employment go back up.”
Plans for the decommission are still being worked out by
the DOE, Murphie said.
JEFF BARRON can be reached at (740) 353-3101, ext. 236.
Story created Friday, July 15, 2005.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more
information go to:
*****************************************************************