----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 11:01 AM
Subject: [abolition-caucus] TV on Japan's bomb program
"Japan's Atomic
Bomb"
"A revealing look
at the untold story of Japan's atomic bomb, and how they may have detonated a
nuclear device just two days before surrender. Since the end of WWII,
conventional wisdom claimed that Imperial Japan was years away from building an
atomic weapon--this special shatters this view. Using once secret Japanese
wartime documents, we provide evidence that Japan had world- class nuclear
physicists, access to uranium ore, and cyclotrons to process it. They devised an
innovative way to deliver the bombs using 400-foot long Sen Toku submarines,
capable of carrying and launching airplanes. Most startling--just six days after
Hiroshima, Japan tested its own atomic device on a small island 20 miles off the
Korean coast. The sobering conclusion is that Japan may have been just weeks
behind the US in the race for the bomb."
-- I have heard
that the program has been softened considerably due to political considerations
related to the FOX channel & Murdoch's business deals with Japan.
Evidently interviews with North Koreans were heavily censored by that
country. I don't know if the program gets into anything speculative about
Japan's current nuclear weapons potential or mentions Japan's plutonium
stockpiling program or start-up of the massive new Rokkasho reprocessing
factory.
Short Greenpeace
video on Hiroshima anniversary & Rokkasho:
http://activism.greenpeace.org/video/okinawa/Hiroshima60_VF.rm
http://activism.greenpeace.org/video/okinawa/Hiroshima60_VF.wmv
More on Hiroshima
anniversary from Greenpeace Japan:
http://www.greenpeace.or.jp/campaign/nuclear/hiroshima/video_en_html
Tom
(FYI, today -
August 12 - is my last day as a full-time employee of Greenpeace International
though will be doing some contract work for the organization; I'll keep a
Greenpeace e-mail address but will be using this one more:
tomclements329@cs.com;
tel 301-270-0192,
cell 202-415-6158)
To
subscribe to the Abolition Global Caucus, send an email from the account you
wish to be subscribed to: abolition-caucus-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To
unsubscribe, send a blank email to abolition-caucus-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Do not include a subject line or any text in the body of the
message.
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
*****************************************************************
16 RIA Novosti: Opinion &analysis - Chernobyl remains a radiation-dangerous place
12/ 08/ 2005
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti commentator Tatyana Sinitsyna.)
Construction workers rebuilding the protective shell over the
Chernobyl nuclear reactor destroyed by an explosion 19 years ago
have been complaining of increasing instances of internal
radiation.
And although there is no direct threat to health, the committee
concerned with contractor safety is worried. Doctors think
radioactive substances getting into people's bodies with water,
food or through the respiratory organs are responsible.
Tens of thousands of clean-up workers suffered health problems
or even died when they hastily erected the envelope in 1986. It
was touch and go, and they had to work by trial and error.
Shelter-1, as it is officially called, is a giant structure 25
stories tall.
"Within it is 185 tons of nuclear fuel with a total activity of
17 million curies," said Dr. Alexander Borovoi, head of the
Kurchatov Institute task group in Chernobyl. "The explosion has
scattered part of the fuel [3-5%] around the plant. Over 30% of
the cesium it contained was evaporated and carried by air
currents thousands of kilometers away. Given that cesium has a
half-life of 30 years, and plutonium 24,000 years, it can be
said that the Chernobyl radiation-inflicted wound will take an
indefinite time to heal and will remain a constant threat to
humans."
Borovoi says that the building is unfortunately not strong
enough structurally. Much of the work was done remotely, hence
the defects. For example, cracks could not be helped. On rainy
days the water gets inside the shelter, dissolves radioactive
substances, and takes them into the groundwater. The total crack
area is today estimated at several hundred square meters. This
means that people may breathe in plutonium dust that filters
out. Besides, the shell rests on old structures damaged by a
powerful explosion and a fire. So the odds of a cave-in cannot
be ruled out.
The world community has stepped in to remedy the situation and
to budget the construction of Shelter-2. One billion dollars was
allocated for the project to minimize the harmful effects of
Chernobyl, and the process is now under way. The plans provide
for building a ferro-concrete facility to encase the reactor
once more, and in a more reliable fashion. In the meantime, the
old envelope is being fortified and sealed.
At the request of Ukraine, the Kurchatov Institute did a good
deal of work to draw up instructions on behavior, particularly
among construction workers, in cases of exposure to radiation
risk. They wrote instructions how to suppress radioactive dust,
what solutions to use for decontamination, and how to weld or
drill. Unfortunately, specialists complain, these
recommendations are not followed to the letter, which, they
think, explains the contamination with radionuclids.
"Chernobyl's chastening experience is, unluckily, at a discount
in the world," said Yevgeny Velikhov, member of the Russian
Academy of Sciences and president of the Kurchatov Institute.
"We in Russia have a powerful Emergencies Ministry, like the
U.S. Homeland Security Department. But staff working there are
familiar with man-made radiation explosions only in theory, and
if this theory is applied in practice, chaos and confusion may
ensue."
Russia, Velikhov said with conviction, could contribute a good
deal in drafting a serious international program to scrupulously
sum up the hands-on experience of Chernobyl.
© 2005 "RIA Novosti"
*****************************************************************
17 NRC: NRC Schedules Regulatory Conference to Discuss Hatch Nuclear Plant Concern
News Release - Region II - 2005-03
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs, Region II
No. II-05-037 August 12, 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
regulatory conference with officials of Southern Nuclear
Operating Company on August 16 in Atlanta to discuss the risk
significance of an inspection finding at the companys Hatch
nuclear power plant, located near Baxley, Ga.
NRC and Southern Nuclear officials will discuss the significance
of concerns associated with an NRC inspection finding involving
the plants Technical Support Center being out of service for a
period of ten days during late April and early May this year.
The TSC is a facility that would be occupied by plant personnel
during certain emergency response situations. That facility was
removed from service to perform ventilation system modifications
and based on the NRCs review, the removal of the facility from
service for that period is a performance deficiency and an
apparent violation of NRC regulations.
The NRC evaluates regulatory performance at commercial nuclear
power plants with a color- coded system which classifies
findings as either green, white, yellow or red, in increasing
order of safety significance. The NRCs preliminary evaluation
determined that the safety significance of this issue at Hatch
is White, meaning that it is considered to be of low to moderate
safety significance.
The meeting is open to public observation and is scheduled for
1:00 p.m., in the NRCs Region II office, located on the 24th
floor of the Atlanta Federal Center at 61 Forsyth Street SW in
Atlanta.
No decisions on the final safety significance, any apparent
violation or any possible enforcement action will be made during
the conference. Those decisions will be made by NRC officials at
a later time.
Last revised Friday, August 12, 2005
*****************************************************************
18 The Herald: Nuclear sites to be cleared years early
Web Issue 2331 August 12 2005
DAVID ROSS, Highland Correspondent August 12 2005
THE decommissioning of two nuclear power plants should be
completed many decades earlier than planned,
government-appointed experts said yesterday.
The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) said the UK's
ageing Magnox reactor sites, including Hunterston A, in
Ayrshire, and Chapelcross, near Dumfries, could be cleared
within 25 years.
But it also warned that the cost of decommissioning the first
20 nuclear sites will be at least £8bn more than expected.
Hunterston, which operated from 1964 to 1989, was scheduled to
be returned to greenfield status by 2090, while Chapelcross,
Scotland's first nuclear power station, which ceased generating
electricity in June last year, is to be returned to brownfield
status by 2128.
But the NDA said there was "a strong case to abandon this
approach in favour of de-fuelling, decommissioning and release"
of the sites for alternative uses by 2030.
The proposals are contained in the NDA's first report since it
was set up last year to take strategic responsibility for the
UK's nuclear legacy.
Critics last night insisted the huge cost increase should put
the last nail in the coffin of any plans for new nuclear power
stations in Scotland.
Sir Anthony Cleaver, NDA chairman, said: "In terms of the
overall cost, we inherited an original estimate of £48bn.
"When we rolled up the life cycle baseline (costs) and added
them together last year they came to £56bn.
"Our expectation is that, in the short term, that number may
well increase."
Sir Anthony said Dounreay's already accelerated programme was
reasonable and achievable over the next 30 years.
He admitted that speeding up decommissioning and looking for
"other innovative ways of tackling things" could help to reduce
costs.
"The current plans assume that we spend 10 or 15 years on each
Magnox station, reducing it to a point where the higher
radiation areas are contained on the site. We then leave it for
60 or 70 years and, finally, come back to complete the
decommissioning.
"We think, based on experience elsewhere in the world, it
should be possible to accelerate that process significantly, and
there are major benefits we believe in doing that." The NDA said
its proposed approach to the Magnox reactors was similar to
those adopted in Japan, which plans to decommission a similar
reactor in 17 years.
The report said it may be possible for Chapelcross to be
decommissioned almost a century ahead of schedule.
However, the NDA's draft strategy makes clear that
decommissioning the higher- hazard legacy facilities at
Sellafield is its "number one clean-up priority", accounting for
60% of the clean-up budget.
Alex Salmond, the SNP leader, said last night: "The £8bn
increase to decommissioning costs should be the final nail in
the coffin for any new nuclear power stations in Scotland. The
authorities are struggling to deal with current sites, never
mind burdening future generations with even more deadly waste."
Sites for decommissioning
Berkeley, Gloucestershire
Bradwell, Essex
Calder Hall, Cumbria
Capenhurst, Cheshire
Chapelcross, Dumfriesshire
Culham, Oxfordshire
Dounreay, Caithness
Drigg, Cumbria
Dungeness, Kent
Harwell, Oxfordshire
Hinkley, Somerset
Hunterston, Ayrshire
Oldbury, Gloucestershire
Sellafield, Cumbria
Sizewell, Suffolk
Springfields, Lancashire
Trawsfynydd, north Wales
Windscale, Cumbria
Winfrith, Dorset
Wylfa, north Wales
Copyright © Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights
Reserved
*****************************************************************
19 TheChamplainChannel.com: Board Chair Removes Himself From Yankee Case
POSTED: 7:47 pm EDT August 11, 2005
MONTPELIER, Vt. -- The chairman of the Public Service Board is
removing himself from a case involving plans by the Vermont
Yankee nuclear power plant to build a radioactive waste storage
facility.
Chairman James Volz recused himself from the case Wednesday
after the nuclear watchdog group New England Coalition raised
questions about whether Volz had an open mind on the issue.
Volz, who was appointed chairman of the quasi-judicial board
earlier this year, was formerly the chief of the advocacy office
for the Department of Public Service.
The department has supported letting Vermont Yankee's owner
Entergy nuclear, build the high-level waste storage facility.
Have a comment about this story? E-mail our newsroom.
Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or
redistributed.
© 2005, Internet Broadcasting Systems, Inc.
*****************************************************************
20 NRC: Nuclear Management Company, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Amendment
FR Doc E5-4374
[Federal Register: August 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 155)]
[Notices] [Page 47263] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12au05-128]
to Facility Operating License The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (Commission) has issued Amendment No. 225 to Facility
Operating License No. DPR-27 issued to Nuclear Management
Company, LLC (the licensee), which modified the Point Beach
Nuclear Plant (PBNP), Unit 2, Final Safety Analysis Report to
include a reactor vessel head drop accident for operation of the
PBNP, Unit 2, located in Two Rivers, WI. The amendment is
effective as of the date of issuance.
The amendment authorized changes to the design basis and Final
Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) related to a postulated reactor
vessel head drop accident in accordance with 10 CFR 50.71(e). The
application for the amendment complies with the standards and
requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the
Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission
has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are
set forth in the license amendment.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility
Operating License and Opportunity for a Hearing in connection
with this action was published in the Federal Register on May 13,
2005 (70 FR 25621).
For further details with respect to this action see (1) the
application for amendment dated April 29, 2005, as supplemented
by letters dated May 13, May 19, June 1, June 4, June 9, June 20,
and June 23, 2005, (2) Amendment No. 225 to License No. DPR-301,
and (3) the Commission's related Safety Evaluation dated June 24,
2005. The Commission made a final no significant hazards
consideration determination in its Safety Evaluation dated June
24, 2005.
Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's
Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, Public
File Area O1 F21,11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible
electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and
Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the
Internet at the NRC Web site,
http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. Persons who do not have
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC Public Document
Room Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397- 4209,
301-415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville,
Maryland, this 24th day of June 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Harold K. Chernoff, Sr. Project Manager, Section 1, Project
Directorate III, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E5-4374 Filed 8-11-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
21 RedNova News: Ukrainian Nuclear Reactor Stopped Over Malfunction
Posted on: Friday, 12 August 2005, 12:00 CDT
Text of report by Ukrainian news agency UNIAN
Kiev, 12 August: Four main circulating pumps stopped operating
at the No 4 generating set at the Rivne nuclear power plant [in
western Ukraine] at 1219 [0919 gmt] today when the second
protection system was being tested, the public relations centre
of the Enerhoatom national nuclear generating company has told
UNIAN.
This put the emergency protection system into operation, and the
generating set was disconnected from the grid.
The report says that an investigation has been launched into the
causes of what happened. A request to disconnect the generating
set was submitted for 24 hours.
We recall that maintenance is under way at the No 5 generating
set at the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant.
Source: BBC Monitoring Former Soviet Union
© 2002-2005 RedNova.com. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
22 Grist: Germany says auf Wiedersehen to nuclear power, guten Tag to renewables
| By Michael Levitin | Grist Magazine
12 Aug 2005
Nein Lives
Germany says auf Wiedersehen to nuclear power, guten Tag to
renewables
By Michael Levitin 12 Aug 2005 For a people as addicted to
order as the Germans, this country is floundering in
uncertainty. The economy has sputtered to a post-World War II
record 5 million unemployed. Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's
exhausted left-of-center coalition is close to coughing up the
fall elections to conservatives. And soccer fans aren't even
sure if their team can defend the country's pride when it hosts
the World Cup next summer.
[Greenpeace nuclear protest in Germany.] Protesters have been
up in arms. Photo: Rosenthal/Greenpeace. About the only thing
most Germans are sure about right now is the dire need to
abandon nuclear power, evidenced by the "Switch Off and Rethink"
mantra stamped on billboards and in newspapers, buzzing from
television sets, and crossing people's lips throughout the
nation. And tough policies enacted by the red-green government
have laid an incredible groundwork for that move -- not just for
Europe's wealthiest nation to become nuclear-free in the next 15
years, but for renewable-energy suppliers to double their output
to provide one-fifth of Germany's power within the same period.
By mid-century, the country expects to derive more than half of
its power from renewables.
Pulling the plug on nuclear might be easier said than done if
the atomic-friendly Christian Democrats take power in September.
Many here anticipate that shift, and fear that the new leaders
will try to roll back a half decade of anti-nuclear legislation.
If that is the case, though, they'll be waging an uphill battle.
One year after Germany hosted the first-ever international
conference on renewable fuels, it's safe to say the country is
in the midst of an energy revolution.
Two Down, Seventeen to Go
Five years ago, the government negotiated a Nuclear Exit Law
with the power industry, requiring all 19 of its atomic power
stations to shut down by 2020. No easy task for a country of 82
million, which currently relies on nuclear for 30 percent of its
power. But it's happening: in May, authorities began closing
down Obrigheim, a plant near the Rhine River in the area south
of Frankfurt, making it the second reactor to go off-line.
With a three-part energy mix set to take nuclear's place -- a
short-term increase in cleaner coal- and gas-powered plants, an
increase in renewable-fuels production, and an emphasis on
domestic energy efficiency -- economists, engineers, and energy
specialists consider Germany's decision to phase out nuclear a
no-brainer. The strategy not only avoids further costs to human
health, the climate, and the economy, they say, it makes sense
for other key reasons.
"The investment in nuclear plants has been paid off," says
Michael Schroeren, a spokesperson for the German Environment
Ministry. "If you prolong their operating time, the companies
will simply avoid making the new investments in renewables."
Taking a starker angle, physicist Wolfgang Neumann of Intac, a
waste-management organization based in Hannover, argues that
"the risk is too great for a terrible accident" on the scale of
Chernobyl. Finally, Germany should "get rid of nuclear as fast
as possible because, at the moment, there is no solution for the
waste," warns Peter Hennicke, president of the Wuppertal
Institute for Climate, Environment, and Energy.
[Nuclear power plant.] Waste, want not. In fact, the issue of
waste is burning bright. Germany, engaged since the 1980s in
one-way "nuclear tourism" to France and England -- where spent
fuel was processed and temporarily stored, kept out of sight and
out of mind -- enacted a ban on nuclear-waste exports earlier
this year, as part of the exit agreement. The country must now
figure out what to do with thousands of tons of hot radioactive
fuel it can no longer get rid of, and which needs 30 to 40 years
of cooling before it can be placed in permanent storage.
Between now and 2020, when the last plant is scheduled to
close, Germany's nuclear-power stations expect to produce about
6,000 additional tons of spent fuel. Were the plants' lifetimes
extended until 2040, as the conservative Christian Democrats
have hinted at proposing should they triumph in September, the
amount of unsecured waste could reach 10,000 tons. Thus far,
Germany has failed to find a safe place to store this waste; in
2000, the government slapped a multi-year moratorium on
investigations into Gorleben, a salt mine in the north of the
country touted as a solution by nuclear engineers but considered
insecure by others. Now the nuclear-power companies themselves
are responsible for temporarily storing it. They'll stash it at
their retired plants, potentially posing a serious risk of
accidents or terrorism.
Another complication in the phaseout is the pollution that will
be caused by increased fossil-fuel burning, with coal and
natural gas used as "bridging fuels" while renewables gear up.
Coal already supplies 50 percent of Germany's power; natural gas
is responsible for nearly 10 percent. In the next 15 years, both
will increase. However, some of the big players are making smart
proposals -- like Vattenfall Utility, which has promised to
invest in cleaner coal-powered plants over the next decade.
In recent polls, 80 percent of Germans have voiced support for
bringing an end to atomic energy. Now the phaseout's main
resistance is coming from Germany's four main power producers,
who control more than 80 percent of the energy market and all of
the nuclear production. They cringe at the prospect of small
renewables producers getting a chunk of the pie. But that's the
tack this country is taking -- straight into the wind, and with
remarkable speed and success, due to another big-time policy
move: the Renewable Energy Sources Act.
Try It, You Might Like It
In the last five years, thanks to this singular piece of Green
legislation, Germany has doubled its production of renewable
fuels like wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, and biomass, which
now comprise more than 10 percent of the total energy supply.
Using essential free-market principles, the country has begun a
radical re-mixing of its energy system which, if things go as
planned or better, means Germany will be running on at least 65
percent renewables by mid-century.
[Bavaria Solar Plant.] Solar grows in a Bavarian field. Photo:
PowerLight Corporation. Already, Germany is the leading producer
of wind power, controlling 40 percent of the global market and
employing 35,000 people in an industry that has seen production
costs plummet. The country is second behind Japan in
solar-energy production, hosting massive facilities in
sun-filled Bavaria, while boosting ties to growing solar-power
production markets in places like Spain and the Middle East. In
terms of plain workforce numbers, alternative-energy outfits in
Germany employ around 130,000, three times as many as nuclear.
And the encouragement keeps on coming. A key feature of the
energy act is its "feed-in tariff," which stipulates a fixed,
higher price paid by transmission companies to producers of
renewable fuels for every kilowatt-hour of clean energy they
feed into the grid. The extra cost is then tacked onto
consumers' monthly power bills. The genius of the subsidy is
that it forces consumers, not companies or the government, to
foot the direct extra cost of producing renewable energy -- but
at a price they hardly feel.
For example, the average German household today pays an extra
0.4 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity it receives from
wind, adding a modest total of about $17 to the yearly power
bill. By 2020, renewables are expected to power 20 percent of
the country, and the consumer household tax is likely to rise
one cent per kilowatt-hour or less -- a cost that economists say
will hardly be felt, thanks to improvements in energy use and
efficiency. (Demographic changes could also reduce energy needs
in Germany, as the population is expected to drop as much as 15
percent by 2050.)
This ambitious plan for cutting energy use reflects the last
challenge Germany faces to successfully rid itself of nuclear.
The government, along with the power and appliance industries,
must work hard to convince consumers to pay a slightly higher
price now for new, energy-saving goods like more-efficient
refrigerators, washing machines, computers, and the rest, in
order to achieve 40 percent domestic energy (and cost) savings
in the next 20 to 50 years. Small efficiency improvements in
household appliances alone could save up to 2,000 megawatts per
year nationwide, says the Wuppertal Institute -- an amount
equivalent to the annual output of two large nuclear plants.
All Aboard
It's going to take more than Germany to raise the market roof
on renewable technologies. The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change has said that global emissions need to be cut 70
percent just to keep the climate stable. Which is the kind of
argument that makes President Bush's stance at the recent G8
summit in Scotland all the more reviling: how long can the
United States remain a consumer of one-quarter of the world's
energy and responsible for one-quarter of its CO2 output while
continuing to deny that addressing climate change requires
drastic and immediate energy-policy shifts?
Don't ask Germans (or other Europeans, for that matter) to
comment on America's energy position. They're fed up, for a lot
of good reasons. But whether the U.S. changes course or not,
leaders like Jürgen Tritten, Germany's environment minister, are
holding to a pledge that if the European Union adopts 30 percent
cuts in carbon emissions by 2020, Germany will adopt 40 percent
cuts. (Current E.U. targets of 15 to 30 percent cuts for that
period have not yet been written into law.) And while the
binding Kyoto agreement requires countries to cut emissions by 8
percent from 1990 levels by 2012, Germany has already cut its
levels by 19 percent. Call it Green one-upmanship; the goal,
says Tritten, is to continue "making Germany the world leader in
alternative energy and in taking action against global warming."
Spend Your $.02 in our blog, Gristmill. If the Christian
Democratic Union, led by a scowling, Thatcher-esque Angela
Merkel, rides the national mood of discontent over unemployment
and policy gridlock to power this autumn, the likelihood is that
they will seek not to completely reverse Germany's nuclear
phaseout, but to prolong the lifespan of its remaining reactors.
What is certain to Lutz Metz, an energy-policy professor at
Berlin's Freie University, is that the CDU will bring "very
naive policies" to the table. "The Christian Democrats want the
security of power plants to define the length of their running
time," Metz says. "That means more security checks of existing
plants, rather than changing the structure and phasing out plant
use entirely." By convincing Germans that their remaining atomic
plants operate under safe conditions, conservatives may try to
keep the nuclear industry in business as long as possible -- if
not preventing, then at least delaying, its demise.
But as fuel prices continue to rise, in a sense it doesn't much
matter which political party takes office in September, because
Germany's development of renewables will become an economic, not
just an environmental, priority. To come back to Hennicke of the
Wuppertal Institute: "A big electricity producer is not
interested in the source of his electricity. He is interested in
the source of his profit. Whether it comes from nuclear or wind
or coal doesn't matter, as long as the profit rate is high
enough."
And that is the secret behind Germany's energy revolution:
free-market thinking holds it all together. With the government
requiring consumers to pay more for clean energy that will save
them money in the long run, the renewables industry got the bump
it needed. Unlike in the U.S., where scientists, economists,
environmental pundits, and even an occasional brave politician
have been talking about the renewables revolution for years
without making much progress, in Germany that transition is
visibly, and heatedly, under way.
No matter what happens in the next election, the Greens have
made good use of their seven years in office alongside the
Social Democratic Party. Already, China has adopted elements of
the Renewable Energy Sources Act to fit its own power-scheme
model. In November, an international renewables conference in
Beijing will explore strategies that China and other developing
countries might use to accelerate into an alternative-energy
future. The world's "developed" countries would do well to take
note.
Michael Levitin is a freelance journalist based in Berlin.
Grist Magazine: Environmental News and Commentary
*****************************************************************
23 Reuters: RPT-China may delay nuclear contract decision-sources
Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:18 PM ET
BEIJING, Aug 11 (Reuters) - China may put off a decision on a $8
billion contract to build four nuclear reactors and is
considering only making part-by-part purchases because the
technology is so expensive, industry officials said on Thursday.
The three foreign companies vying for the contract to build the
first third-generation reactors in China are Pittsburgh-based
Westinghouse Electric Co., France's Areva (CEPFi.PA: Quote,
Profile, Research) and Russia's Atomstroiexport.
The government's original plan was to complete a technical
evaluation and recommendation by October and make a final
decision by the end of this year.
But Tian Jiashu, deputy director of the Nuclear Power Department
of the China National Nuclear Corp., speaking on the sidelines of
an industry conference, told journalists that talks with the
vendors were running into trouble.
"(The negotiation) is not progressing very smoothly," he said.
He declined to elaborate but said both Westinghouse's AP 1000
and Areva's EPR technology were competitive.
"They are two representatives of third generation technology,
each has its own advantages. We can't say which one is better,"
Tian said.
PRICE PROBLEMS
A senior official of the Chinese Nuclear Society told Reuters
that the main stumbling block was the high price tag on the
foreign reactors and that Beijing was considering importing only
those parts of the plants that cannot be produced domestically.
"The Chinese side started talks with Westinghouse and Areva from
early August to buy the technology on a part-by-part basis," said
the official who declined to be named.
But he said the government was reluctant to delay its decision,
because it was keen to push ahead with expansion of China's
nuclear capacity.
The energy-guzzling nation plans to invest some 400 billion yuan
($49.3 billion) in building around 30 new nuclear reactors by
2020, bringing its total installed nuclear capacity to 40
gigawatts.
It currently has nine working reactors that supply around 2.3
percent of its electricity but aims to boost the amount of power
it gets from nuclear plants to 4 percent within 15 years.
It has also been trying to build up its domestic manufacturing
capacity with an eye on eventual exports.
"Introducing third generation technology will swiftly promote
our own technology. It could even create conditions for us to
export nuclear technology in the future," He Yu, general manager
of the Guangdong Nuclear Group, told the industry conference.
But some officials are worried that the wide variety of nuclear
technology used in China -- including equipment imported from
France, Russia and Canada -- could hinder development.
"Diversified technology may be conducive to our technological
development, but a standard technology is obviously more suitable
for a safe and stable development of the nuclear sector," Tian
said.
The government, busy dealing with the new technology, may also
delay approval of other new nuclear power plants until the second
half of next year.
Many inland provinces are applying to build reactors, but
Beijing is likely to prioritise the booming but resource-poor
coastal areas, officials said.
"Based on the government blueprint and China's ability to build
nuclear plants, we should first guarantee construction in the
coastal areas," the nuclear society official said. ($1=8.109
yuan)
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
24 Reuters: Bruce Power readies Ontario Bruce 7 nuke for restart
Fri Aug 12, 2005 9:03 AM ET
NEW YORK, Aug 12 (Reuters) - Bruce Power prepared the
800-megawatt unit 7 at the Bruce B nuclear power station in
Ontario to return to service by early Friday, Ontario's
Independent Electricity System Operator said in a report.
The company, which said it expected the unit to return this
week, shut the unit on May 7 for planned maintenance.
Officials at the company were not immediately available for
comment.
The 4,700 MW Bruce station is located in Tiverton on the shores
of Lake Huron, about 155 miles (249 km) northwest of Toronto.
There are two 750 MW units 3 and 4 at the A station and four 800
MW units 5-8 at the B station.
Units 3-6 and 8, meanwhile, remained at high power.
One MW powers about 800 homes, according to the North American
averages.
Separately, Bruce Power reached a tentative agreement with a
provincial negotiator in March for the potential restart of the
two 750 MW units 1 and 2 at the A station.
The government is considering the terms of the agreement. Bruce
Power's board has already approved of the agreement.
The former province-owned energy company Ontario Hydro shut
units 1 and 2 in 1997 and 1995, respectively, because they needed
extensive upgrades. The units entered service in 1977.
The return of units 1 and 2 would replace about 20 percent of
the province's 7,500 MW of coal-fired generation, which the
government wants to shut between 2007 and 2009 for pollution and
health-related reasons.
Bruce Power is a partnership owned by uranium miner Cameco Corp.
(CCO.TO: Quote, Profile, Research) (31.6 percent), energy company
TransCanada Corp. (TRP.TO: Quote, Profile, Research) (31.6
percent), BPC Generation Infrastructure Trust, established by the
Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (31.6 percent), the
Power Workers' Union (4 percent) and the Society of Energy
Professionals (1.2 percent).
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
25 Reuters: Ariz. Palo Verde 1 nuke dips to 61 pct power
Fri Aug 12, 2005 7:16 AM ET
NEW YORK, Aug 12 (Reuters) - The 1,243-megawatt unit 1 at the
Palo Verde nuclear power station in Arizona dipped to 61 percent
by early Friday, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said in a
report.
On Thursday, the unit was operating at 95 percent.
The 3,875 MW Palo Verde station is located in Wintersburg in
Maricopa County, about 50 miles west of Phoenix. There are three
units at Palo Verde: the 1,243 MW unit 1, the 1,335 MW unit 2 and
the 1,247 MW unit 3.
Units 2 and 3 continued to operate at full power and 99 percent,
respectively.
One MW powers about 800 homes, according to the North American
average.
Phoenix-based energy company Pinnacle West Capital Corp.'s
(PNW.N: Quote, Profile, Research) regulated Arizona Public
Service subsidiary operates the station for its owners.
The owners include APS (29.1 percent), the Salt River Project
(17.5 percent), Edison International's (EIX.N: Quote, Profile,
Research) Southern California Edison Co. subsidiary (15.8
percent), El Paso Electric Co. (EE.N: Quote, Profile, Research)
(15.8 percent), PNM Resources Inc.'s (PNM.N: Quote, Profile,
Research) Public Service Co of New Mexico subsidiary (10.2
percent), Southern California Public Power Authority (5.9
percent) and the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (5.7
percent).
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
26 Reuters: FPL sees Fla. St Lucie 2 nuke back later Friday
Fri Aug 12, 2005 2:18 PM ET
NEW YORK, Aug 12 (Reuters) - FPL Group Inc. (FPL.N: Quote,
Profile, Research) fixed the problem that shut the 839-megawatt
unit 2 at the St. Lucie nuclear station in Florida and expects
the unit to return to service later on Friday afternoon, a
company spokeswoman said.
Operators shut the unit Thursday after the feed water level
started to drop after a breaker problem affected a motor that
provides feed water. The feed water pumps move water from the
condenser to the steam generators, which turn the water into the
steam used to turn the turbine.
The event did not cause any problems with the grid of the
adjacent unit 1.
Earlier in the day unit 2 was operating at full power.
The 1,678 MW St. Lucie station is located on Hutchinson Island
in St. Lucie County about 120 miles north of Miami. There are two
839 MW units 1 and 2 at St. Lucie.
Unit 1, meanwhile, continued to operate at full power.
One MW powers about 800 homes, according to the North American
averages.
FPL Group's regulated Florida Power & Light Co. (FP&L)
subsidiary, which owns all of unit 1, operates the station for
its owners. FP&L (85.1 percent), Florida Municipal Power Agency
(8.8 percent) and Orlando Utilities Commission (6.1 percent) own
unit 2.
FPL's subsidiaries own and operate more than 31,000 MW of
generating capacity across the United States, market energy
commodities, and transmit and distribute electricity to more than
4.2 million customers in Florida.
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
27 Ottawa Citizen: OPG won't refurbish two nuclear units
canada.com network
Canadian Press
Friday, August 12, 2005
TORONTO -- Ontario Power Generation said Friday it won't go
ahead with a proposed refurbishment of two units at its
Pickering A nuclear generating facility.
Instead, the province's electricity generating agency said it
will "devote its resources and expertise to maximizing the
performance'' of its 10 existing nuclear units.
"For several months we have studied the economics of the
Pickering A Units 2 and 3 return to service, including
third-party reviews,'' OPG president and CEO Jim Hankinson said
in a statement.
"Our mandate is to operate our assets as efficiently and as
cost-effectively as possible. We don't see a sound business case
for returning Units 2 and 3 to service.''
The company's board has advised the Ontario government of its
decision, OPG said.
"The return-to-service project is technically feasible and the
units could be operated safely for several years,'' Hankinson
said. "However, the physical conditions of Units 4 and 1 made
them better candidates for return to service than Units 2 and
3.''
OPG's nuclear units produced almost 30 per cent of the power
used by the province last year. Its nine nuclear units produced
42.3 terrawatt hours of electricity in 2004, 4.6 terrawatt hours
more than in 2003.
The utility returned the Pickering A Unit 4 to service in 2003
and the refurbished Unit 1 is expected to be in service in
October at a projected cost of about $1 billion.
Units 2 and 3 have been maintained in a safe shutdown state
since December 1997. Over the next two years the fuel and heavy
water will be removed from Units 2 and 3 and the units will be
put into a long-term layup state, OPG said.
OPG also reported its net income for the three months ended June
30, was $63 million or 25 cents per share, compared with a loss
of $41 million or 16 cents per share a year earlier.
© Canadian Press 2005
Copyright © CanWest Interactive Inc. All rights reserved.
CanWest Interactive Inc. is an affiliate of CanWest Global
Communications Corp. Copyright & Permission Rules
*****************************************************************
28 Nuclear Terror Drill to Go Live? Let's Hope Not
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:18:16 -0500 (CDT)
X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com
From: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2005/110805terrordrill.htm
Nuclear Terror Drill to Go Live? Let's Hope Not
R. Leland Lehrman
August 11 2005
On June 29th, the United States Northern Command (NORTHCOM) posted news of a
nuclear terrorism drill on its website: "Here's the scenario
A seafaring
vessel transporting a 10-kiloton nuclear warhead makes its way into a port off
the coast of Charleston, S.C. Terrorists aboard the ship attempt to smuggle
the warhead off the ship to detonate it." It went on to say that "Sudden
Response 05 will take place this August on Fort Monroe and will be carried out
as an internal command post exercise. The exercise is intended to train the
JTF-CS staff to plan and execute Consequence Management operations in support
of Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IV's response to a nuclear
detonation." As Alex Jones of infowars.com and others have pointed out, terror
"drills" are now known to be the favorite "cover story" for New World Order
terrorist operations, as evidenced by the eerily synchronous terrorism drills
happening on both 9/11 and 7/7.
Recently, former CIA/DIA analyst Philip Giraldi has informed us that
"Vice-President Cheney has tasked STRATCOM with "drawing up a contingency plan
to be employed in response to another 9/11- type terrorist attack on the
United States" and that "the plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran
employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons." Investigators and
counter-intelligence specialists are concerned that this upcoming August
nuclear terror scenario might go live to create the pretext for tactical
nuclear war against Iran.
Mother Media contacted NORTHCOM Public Affairs this morning and learned that
the Fort Monroe drill will begin in a "couple of days." We are waiting on the
press release which should also be posted at the Joint Strike Force Civilian
Support (JSF-CS) website. Fort Monroe internal communications indicate that
antiterrorism exercises are slated for August 17th, but there is no mention of
a anything nuclear. Concerned parties can contact JTF-CS Public Affairs
Officer Michael Eck at 757.788.6259 or Michael Kucharek of Northcom Public
Affairs at 719.554.6889 ext. 2. Mother Media hopes that mass awareness of New
World Order methods could prevent additional false flag attacks, whether
tomorrow, next week or next year.
Separately, Mother Media also learned that CNN recently launched their
military operations news special "Situation Room" from inside the NORTHCOM
situation room in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Wolf Blitzer, New World Order
mouthpiece, is the show's hawkish host. Imagine that - a new CNN "Situation
Room" military focus news program debuts in NORTHCOM headquarters days prior
to a nuclear terror drill. They're not even bothering to pretend there's
separation between the press and the government anymore. CNN here makes it
obvious that they are now the New World Order's propaganda mouthpiece.
Adding to the drama, the four-star commander of the Army's Training and
Doctrine Command (TRADOC) at the Fort Monroe base where the nuclear terror
drill is to occur, Kevin P. Byrnes was just relieved of his command amidst
allegations of sexual misconduct. Veteran investigator Greg Szymanski has
uncovered another plausible motive: "Sources close to the military who remain
anonymous said Byrnes was part of a U.S. military faction discontented with
the Bush administration war policies in Iraq and the potential for a nuclear
disaster in Iran.
In an effort to stop the Bush administration in its tracks, sources say Byrnes
was about to lead a coup against the hawks in the military and executive
branch determined to lead America into a global conflict, leading to
devastating ramifications for the country, as well as financial and social
chaos.
Rumors inside the military say that a growing faction of discontented
high-ranking officers are attempting internally to try and stop the Bush
administration's imminent plans for war with Iran in an effort to avert global
war.
Although the exact number of high-ranking military involved is undetermined,
sources have disclosed it appears to be evenly split between pro Bush and anti
Bush factions.
Even though speculation abounds about an attempted coup relating to the Byrnes
firing, no one would question the strange rumblings of war against Iran and
warnings of terrorist threats on the homeland that are beginning to circulate
from administration officials and media talking heads almost on a daily
basis.
Further, ominous reports are even coming from the Washington Post this week
that the Pentagon has developed its first ever war plans for operations within
the United States, plans justifying and making necessary preparations for
martial law in case of a homeland terrorist attack."
If you look at NORTHCOM's website, you will find a discussion of the
situations under which Posse Comitatus, the restriction against military
policing in America, can legally be suspended. One of those conditions is an
attack by a nuclear or other weapon of mass destruction. Another is
"insurrection."
Diabolically standing over all of these scenarios is Global Cleanse 2000 or
just Global 2000, a population control methodology developed by the New World
Order which includes triggered natural disasters, wars and diseases designed
to reduce the world population by two thirds. Rene Welch, who had access to
the Global Cleanse 2000 database in the late eighties, recently appeared on
Mother Media's radio program to discuss her findings.
In response to this author's article, Israel, Iran and a Nuclear False Flag
Attack, reports have been flowing into Mother Media's office confirming and
buttressing this story. One former Air Force member writes that all military
leaves have been cancelled after September 7th and that Homeland Security is
beefing up security at local Draft Board Offices. Writing as TeaParty2Come,
this source paints an ominous picture:
"About 3 weeks ago I was surfing some of the sites I enjoy posting on, when
someone posted in all caps that they had just heard from an officer friend in
the military that all leaves had been cancelled for the month of September.
Obviously aware of the false flags our government is famous for, this person
sounded desperate, asking for help in confirming or denying this "rumor" from
anyone who had connections in the military.
I happened to ask a co-worker friend of mine whose son in-law is in the Army
(82nd) about checking out the "rumor". Well guess what, they've had to move up
their leave to this coming week to come home because his unit has to be back
by September 7th where upon all leaves are cancelled! They have seen a steady
build up of heavy materials just sitting in storage facilities. He also
commented that they were rushed through a training course on new weapons
systems they just rolled out. He thought this very odd and a first.
This sent shivers all through me.
Not to push any panic buttons I spoke with a dear woman with whom I work whose
son is in the Army in an artillery unit. She is a former Captain, her husband
is a former Colonel and Vietnam vet and successful attorney here in our area
who also happens to be dying from the effects of Agent Orange. Lo and behold
their son was told all leaves are cancelled for September and in December they
may get leave, but can travel no further than 17 kilometers from their base.
My niece is married to a young man in the Army stationed on the East Coast he
is also 82nd, his leave has also been cancelled. Their first baby is due in
December.
..I'm not prone to fits of paranoia but I have to tell you, I have begun
stocking water and canned goods. I am ex Air Force, I was on three ring
standby most of my enlistment and was in a constant training mode. I know how
this works and it doesn't sound good.
The draft board offices are in place with staff waiting for the word to go. I
read an article from a guy who works in one of those offices, he said Homeland
Security came in there early last month and put up bullet proof glass on the
windows and iron bars, they installed blast proof glass on the doors, and
removed the mail drop box slots on the outside of the building. When he asked
what was going on they identified themselves as Homeland Security and said
don't worry about the rest and left.
It's coming no doubt about it. Sorry I can't be more positive, but this is
what I have heard with my own ears from three independent military member
sources in different parts of the country."
A source in New Mexico passed this on to Mother Media a couple weeks ago:
"A friend came by today. His relative is fairly high-level in regional
counter-terrorism. My friend says his relative told him they are preparing for
the strong possibility that there will be 7 U.S. cities attacked with small,
backpack-held nuclear devices by 'al-Qaida types.' It sounds like the
propaganda -- the cover stories for PNAC or whomever these bad guys are -- has
begun."
The sheer number of warnings and events, subtle hints and overt threats is now
too much to ignore. More background and warning signs, especially as regards
Israel and Iran can be found in my article at physics911.net entitled Israel,
Iran, Mossad and a Nuclear False Flag Attack. should alert friends and family
members and active citizens should inform their neighbors and local
authorities. Mother Media has contacted FBI counterintelligence director David
Szady, who is in charge of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee spying
investigation, with some this information and plans to distribute it widely
throughout the local, national and international media. An FBI investigation
directed by Szady caught AIPAC using Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin to spy on
America's Iran policy and more. Given that AIPAC is committed to war with
Iran, we can imagine why they were interested in official American policy on
Iran. It is still possible to stop this insanity, but it will require serious
citizen initiative. Good Luck, Fellow Citizens, and God Bless You. Please
email et leland.lehrman@gmail.comor call 24/7 at 505.982.3609 with
corroborating evidence or additional stories.
NOTE: Many links are embedded in this article above. To access them go at
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2005/110805terrordrill.htm
*****************************************************************
29 Bellona: Adamov remains in Swiss custody
Former Russian atomic energy minister Yevgeny Adamov, who is
accused of fraud, must remain in Swiss custody pending a
decision on his extradition, Swissinfo news agency reported
yesterday.
2005-08-12 14:46
The Swiss Federal Criminal Court on Thursday turned down two
appeals by Adamov to be set free. Adamov, who has been in
detention since May, is the subject of two extradition
requestsone from the US and the other from Russia. Adamov is
accused by the United States of laundering some $9m in nuclear
remediation funding sent by Washington to Russia between 1993
and 2003. The court in Bellinzona also ruled that there was no
evidence to suggest that the US proceedings had been initiated
for political reasons, the agency reported. Regarding the
Russian extradition request, the court's judges found that
Adamov had no immunity on Swiss territory. It is now up to the
Federal Court in Lausanne, which is Switzerland's supreme body,
to make a basic ruling on the two extradition demands.
Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge
Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact:
webmaster@bellona.no
Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box
2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway
*****************************************************************
30 Roanoke Times: Editorial: Increasing risk of nuclear terror
www.roanoke.com
Friday, August 12, 2005
To profit foreign companies, Sen. Pete Domenici forced loosening
of restrictions on the export of weapons-grade uranium.
Occasionally, a story will come out of Washington, D.C., of a
subversion of the public interest so monumental as to stun even
the most jaded cynic.
For example, U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., went to
extraordinary lengths to relax limits on the export of
weapons-grade uranium in order to benefit foreign pharmaceutical
companies.
Domenici apparently did not care that the provision he inserted
in the recently signed energy bill would dramatically increase
the chances of terrorists' acquiring the type of nuclear
material used in the bomb over Hiroshima.
He apparently did not care that the measure was opposed by
fellow Republican, Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, chairman of the
House Energy Committee, or that it had been voted down in the
Senate.
Domenici didn't even care, apparently, that the provision will
make it harder for a company in his own state to raise money for
its effort to produce medical isotopes more safely with
lower-grade uranium.
None of that apparently mattered. Domenici twisted the arms of
the Republicans he appointed to the House-Senate conference
committee, and they included the provision in the final bill,
which President Bush signed despite his Energy Department's
objections that the Domenici provision would undermine support
for U.S. efforts to eliminate the commercial use of
weapons-grade uranium.
The main beneficiary of Domenici's stupefying irresponsibility
is Canadian company MDS Nordion, which decided against making
the expensive switch to lower-grade uranium to produce medical
isotopes.
Apparently, lobbying Congress to relax the export limits was far
cheaper.
At a House Energy and Commerce Committee meeting, Rep. Edward J.
Markey, D-Mass., expressed his frustration. "[T]his is
outrageous. To save one Canadian company some money, we're
willing to blow a hole in our nonproliferation policies," he
said.
How dangerous would weapons-grade uranium be in the wrong hands?
The late Luiz Alvarez, an American nuclear physicist who worked
on the Manhattan Project, said, "Most people seem unaware that
if highly enriched uranium is at hand, it's a trivial job to set
off a nuclear explosion -- even a high school kid could make a
bomb in short order."
So, to help foreign companies save money, Domenici is willing,
apparently, to put the world at increased risk of a nuclear
terror attack.
After returning from its August recess, Congress should reverse
this abomination.
*****************************************************************
31 Homeland Response: Energy Bill Provides for Enhanced Security at Commercial Nuclear
Facilities
www.respondersafety.net
08/12/2005
The energy bill signed by President George W. Bush contains
provisions long sought by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to
enhance security at nuclear power plants and other facilities,
including authorization for licensee security guards to use more
powerful weaponry and more extensive background checks for
personnel with access to nuclear materials or safeguards
information.
"This wide-ranging legislation enhances our ability to ensure
the protection of public health, safety and the common defense,"
said NRC Chairman Nils J. Diaz. "These provisions will make an
industry that is already well protected even safer from the
threats of terrorism and radiological sabotage."
Under this legislation, the NRC will for the first time have
regulatory authority over additional radioactive materials,
including certain sources of radium-226 and materials produced
in accelerators rather than in reactors.
The energy bill also contains specific security-related
requirements that in large degree address measures already
initiated by the NRC. These include revisions to the agency's
design basis threat through rulemaking and establishment of a
national tracking system for radioactive sources in the United
States.
The act also expands criminal penalties for anyone bringing in
unauthorized weapons or explosives or committing sabotage at
nuclear power plants and other licensee facilities designated by
the NRC.
Other provisions in the bill will facilitate NRC's recruitment
of engineers, scientists, security experts and other
professionals at a time when the agency anticipates a greatly
increased workload due to potential applications for new
commercial power reactors and the proposed Yucca Mountain waste
repository. The NRC is now authorized to support university
programs for academic fields critical to the agency's regulatory
activities and to establish partnership programs with minority
institutions of higher learning. NRC may also award financial
assistance to undergraduate and graduate students in return for
subsequent employment with the NRC.
by James Nash ()
Copyright © 2005 Penton Media, Inc.
Copyright Notice| Privacy Policy
*****************************************************************
32 NRC: NRC Begins Special Inspection of Damage to Nuclear Gauge at Indiana Foundry
News Release - Region III - 2005-03
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs, Region III
No. III-05-036 August 12, 2005
CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663
Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 E-mail:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has begun a special inspection
to review the circumstances surrounding the recent damage to a
nuclear gauge at the DaimlerChrysler Indianapolis Foundry. The
foundry, located at 1100 S. Tibbs Ave., Indianapolis, Ind.,
manufactures cast iron engine blocks.
The gauge was damaged when overheated during foundry operations
in late July. The permanently mounted gauge, which contains a
sealed radiation source of radioactive cesium, is used to
measure the level of metal in foundry equipment. The overheating
affected the lead shielding in the gauge, but does not appear to
have damaged the radioactive material which is contained in a
double-walled steel capsule inside the shielded gauge.
After the gauge was damaged, several workers may have received
inadvertent radiation exposures while assessing the malfunction.
No significant health consequences would be expected from these
radiation exposures.
The damage was reported to the NRC on Wednesday, August 10. The
gauge has been shut down, and access to the area surrounding the
gauge is being controlled.
A team of three NRC inspectors arrived at the facility on
Thursday afternoon. The inspectors are reviewing the gauge
damage, evaluating the possible radiation exposures received by
workers, and assessing the plans for removal and replacement of
the gauge.
An report of the teams findings will be issued about 30 days
after the completion of the inspection. The report will be
available from the NRCs Region III Office of Public Affairs and
in the NRCs online public document library at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html assistance in using
the document library is available from the NRC Public Document
Room staff at 800/397-4209.
Last revised Friday, August 12, 2005
*****************************************************************
33 RIA Novosti: Opinion &analysis - Last hours of the Kursk
12/ 08/ 2005
Moscow, August 12 - RIA Novosti. - This day marks five years
since the disaster of the Kursk, a major Russian nuclear-powered
submarine, in the Barents Sea, which killed the whole crew of
118. Below is the day-by-day record of that tragedy.
AUGUST 12, 2000: The K-141 Kursk, part of a Northern Fleet
exercise in the Barents Sea, fails to respond to radio calls. In
the night, an explosion is detected where the submarine was
thought to operate.
AUGUST 13, 2000: The Kursk is found on the sea bottom, 350 feet
underwater.
AUGUST 14, 2000: A Navy spokesman says there is radio contact
with the submarine. According to other Navy officials, the
crewmen are safe and get fuel and oxygen through a Bell rescue
unit. Having received an on-scene surveillance report from
submersible video cameras, the Navy says the Kursk ran into the
bottom at an angle of about 40 degrees, and the fore end, where
the floating rescue chamber should be stored, went into pieces.
Navy Commander Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov says there is little
hope to save the crew.
AUGUST 15, 2000: The Navy Headquarters officially declares the
beginning of a rescue operation. The rescue is hampered by a sea
storm. A Northern Fleet official tells reporters that knocks are
heard from inside the submarine, indicating that there are alive
people onboard.
AUGUST 16, 2000: A rescue submarine Priz repeatedly fails to get
into the Kursk. Navy Commander officially calls the West for
help and says Russia will accept any assistance.
AUGUST 19, 2000: The second, international, leg of the rescue
operation begins late in the day as the Norwegian ship Normand
Pioneer delivers the British LR5 rescue mini-sub to the scene.
AUGUST 20, 2000: Minutes after midnight, the Norwegian rescue
boat Seaway Eagle brings a deep diving team to the Kursk. After
final negotiations, the Northern Fleet rescue force begins a
practical Russian-Norwegian-British concerted rescue effort.
SEVERAL HOURS LATER: The Norwegians survey the hull of the
submarine for cracks and are looking for air bubbles where
people could survive. They de-block the emergency hatch but
access to the boat is still hampered. The Norwegian team hastily
creates makeshift entry accessories.
AUGUST 21, 2000: In the morning, Norwegian divers enter the 9th
rear compartment through an emergency hatch and find it filled
with water. A remote-controlled video camera shows a dead body
in the compartment thought to be the only one where air bubbles
could save lives. Northern Fleet Chief of Staff Vice Admiral
Mikhail Motsak officially confirms the deaths of all crewmen.
AUGUST 22, 2000: Russian President Vladimir Putin arrives in
Severomorsk, the main base of the Northern Fleet, to meet
victims' relatives and friends. He fails to explain what
happened to the submarine and why the crew was not saved.
Ilya Klebanov, the then deputy prime minister and head of the
government commission investigating into the Kursk disaster,
says:
"As far back as late August 14, we were all but certain that
there were no living people onboard... But we could not state
[officially] that all of them were dead. There was still hope,
albeit more in theory, for an air bubble in the 9th
compartment."
Klebanov also says the real rescue began on August 13, 6:30 PM
Moscow time. The official theory of what caused the crash
remains a collision with a large underwater object. Military
experts point the finger at a British submarine, amid widespread
rumors of a U.S. submarine having been somewhere around when the
Kursk collapsed.
DAYS LATER: The New York Times reports two U.S. Navy submarines,
one of them Los Angeles-class nuclear-powered attack submarine
USS Memphis later to be found in the Norwegian seaport of
Bergen, cruised near Kursk's operational area at the time of its
last exercise. A source tells the Times the Kursk was downed by
the explosion of an unfired torpedo. Russians still suspect
Kursk's collision with a foreign submarine the highest
probability - a theory U.S. and U.K. officials dismiss and say
there were no U.S. and Royal Navy ships when and where the Kursk
hit the bottom.
SEPTEMBER 6, 2000: The U.S. shares all information on the Kursk
disaster with Russia, including the time of what is thought to
be an onboard explosion within a second.
SEPTEMBER 19, 2000: Vladimir Putin takes decision to start the
salvage operation on the Kursk.
OCTOBER 2, 2000: Rubin, a St. Petersburg-based design bureau
appointed as the head contractor of the salvage, signs a
contract with the Norwegian office of Halliburton AS, a major
international oil service firm.
OCTOBER 25, 2000: The salvage team begins operation to lift the
bodies of the crewmen.
OCTOBER 26, 2000: The divers enter the submarine and examine the
bodies. Some people in the 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th (fore to aft)
compartments are said to have been alive after the explosion.
The team finds a farewell message on Dmitry Kolesnikov, the 9th
compartment crew leader: "1:15 PM. All men from the 6th, 7th,
and 8th compartments are now in the 9th, all in all 23 people.
We took this decision after an emergency. There is no way out
for us." The rest of the text is said to be too personal and
therefore cannot be published. Vice Adm. Motsak of the Northern
Fleet later tells reporters two to three men tried to escape
through an emergency hatch but failed because the compartment
was full of water.
LATER THAT MONTH: All salvage operations in the aft compartment
are suspended.
NOVEMBER 2, 2000: The salvage team attempts to enter the 3rd
compartment but fails: The video cameras show what is reported
to be "considerable damage, debris of equipment, mechanisms, and
instruments."
NOVEMBER 7, 2000: Salvage in the 4th compartment is suspended
due to entry-prohibitive damage inside. The salvage operation is
terminated. All Kursk hatches are sealed.
MAY 18, 2001: Russia signs a salvage contract with the
Netherlands-based Mammoet Transport BV.
JULY 16, 2001: The first leg of a three-month lift-up operation
begins; the 1st compartment is to be separated and special
lift-up holes are to be made in the hull.
OCTOBER 7, 2001, EVENING: The lift-up begins. The Kursk remains
are lifted on 26 hold-downs operated from the Gigant-4, a
surface barge, at a rate of around 10 meters per hour. As the
hull is lifted 58 meters (190 feet) from the bottom, the sub is
towed by the Gigant-4 to the base.
OCTOBER 10, 2001: The barge with the Kursk hull underneath
arrives at the Roslyakovo naval repairs base on the Arctic Kola
Peninsula.
OCTOBER 27, 2001: Russian Prosecutor General Vladimir Ustinov
says the whole submarine was on fire, with 8,000 degrees Celcius
in the epicenter, after which the submarine was filled with
water "within six to seven hours, maximum eight," according to
Ustinov. He says the damage was unbelievable, all bulkheads were
"cut off as a knife cuts butter." However, the nuclear reactor
in the 6th compartment was left intact, as were 22 SSN-19 cruise
missiles the submarine was armed with. 115 of 118 crew members'
bodies, including that of Captain First Class Gennady Lyachin,
the commanding officer, are found and identified.
JUNE 19, 2002: Klebanov as head of the investigative government
commission tells reporters the "explosion of a torpedo" remains
the only viable theory, amid media reports that the fire was
caused by failed tests of the new silent and fast torpedo,
Shkval.
JULY 26, 2002: In an official end-of-story statement, General
Prosecutor Ustinov says the submarine sank "because of an
explosion... in the training torpedo storage... with subsequent
explosions of torpedo charges in the 1st compartment of the
submarine."
© 2005 "RIA Novosti"
*****************************************************************
34 RIA Novosti: Five years after Kursk, Russia fails to learn the lessons
12/ 08/ 2005
MOSCOW, August 12 (RIA Novosti) - The Russian Navy has failed to
use modern rescue equipment purchased after the loss of the
Kursk nuclear submarine, the Russian Navy Chief of Staff Admiral
Vladimir Masorin said Friday.
Masorin was speaking at a wreath-laying ceremony at a monument
to the 118 members of the Kursk crew, who died on August 12,
2000 in the Barents Sea after a torpedo exploded on board.
"The Navy purchased the latest equipment but failed to make use
of it. The prosecutors and our internal investigation will help
answer why this happened," Masorin said, referring to an
incident that saw a submersible stranded for three days on the
Pacific seabed before it was rescued by the British navy.
When asked about any lessons drawn from the Kursk accident,
Masorin said the Navy had purchased equipment after the tragedy
and now had to learn to use it properly.
He added that the British rescuers who had freed the trapped
Russian submersible did their job every day.
"This is their job," Masorin said. "They work after they get
hired. But our rescuers are trained occasionally and do not
perform any other functions, except waiting for an alarm signal.
Perhaps, this is a bad practice."
"Let me repeat again, the Russian Navy acquired modern rescue
equipment after the Kursk tragedy. We simply failed to use it,"
Masorin said.
"We need to become responsible, honest and professional," he
added.
© 2005 "RIA Novosti"
*****************************************************************
35 BBC: Russia remembers Kursk disaster
Last Updated: Friday, 12 August 2005
[Russian naval officers attend a church remembrance service in
Moscow]
Russian naval officers attended a remembrance service in Moscow
Remembrance services have been held in Russia to mark five years
since the Kursk submarine sank in the Barents Sea after a torpedo
exploded on board.
Flags were flown at half mast on all Russian navy vessels and
sailors observed a minute of silence.
Church services were held in Moscow, St Petersburg and at the
sub's Arctic home base of Vidyayevo. In the city of Kursk a new
monument was unveiled.
Just days ago a Russian mini-sub's crew was rescued in the
Pacific.
Click here for a graphic showing what happened
The dramatic intervention of a British rescue team to free the
trapped Priz submersible and its crew of seven from the seabed
brought back painful memories.
It raised questions about why, five years on from the Kursk,
Russia still had no modern deep-sea rescue equipment.
The sinking of the Kursk - one of Russia's newest and most modern
submarines - during exercises in 2000 was the country's worst
peacetime military disaster.
Poignant monument
The 118 sailors who died were remembered with services on all
Russian fleets.
[The Kursk submarine at Russia's Vidyayev naval base]
The Kursk was one of Russia's most modern submarines In pictures:
Russia mourns
Relatives attended services in Moscow and St Petersburg, where
many of the men are buried, local media reported.
They laid wreaths at the graves and flowers were cast into the
sea at Vidyayevo.
In the central Russian city of Kursk, from which the vessel took
its name, a monument made from fragments of the submarine was
unveiled.
"For us, it's as if part of our boys were here," one woman told
Russia's Channel One TV.
A small number of the crew survived the initial explosion of an
unstable torpedo - only to die hours later, slowly suffocating in
freezing conditions and pitch darkness.
A rescue mission of sorts had been launched but Russia refused
foreign assistance, even though its navy lacked modern
search-and-rescue equipment.
Many believe that 23 sailors who survived the blast might have
been saved, had the Russian navy reacted in time.
Reforms delayed
The sinking was also a public relations disaster for the Russian
navy and the Russian authorities.
Mr Putin was widely criticised after he stayed on holiday and
said nothing.
The BBC's Steven Eke says live media reports of the incident,
which happened early in Mr Putin's presidency, helped shape
Russia's current leadership.
Analysts say the negative coverage was one of the key factors in
the way the Kremlin went on to wrest back control of Russia's TV
channels.
There could be no admission of impotence, our correspondent says,
and none of the offers of resignation from navy officers were
accepted.
Even the unprecedented government inquiry into the disaster
decided no blame or responsibility could be apportioned, he adds.
Military prosecutors closed their investigation in July 2002,
concluding that no sailors could have lived long enough after the
explosion to be rescued.
THE KURSK DISASTER
Barents Sea, 12 August 2000 1. It is believed that fuel leaking
from a torpedo ignited, causing fire and a devastating explosion
in the Kursk's forward sections 2. Russian rescue subs tried and
failed to open escape hatches. Further rescue attempts abandoned
after Norwegian divers finally managed to open a hatch, and found
the boat totally flooded 3. It was later discovered that some 23
sailors survived in compartment 9 at the stern for several hours
after the explosion
*****************************************************************
36 Salt Lake Tribune: Material in canyon blast came from Spanish Fork
plant
Article Last Updated: 08/12/2005 02:00:51 AM
Exploration: The explosives that blew up on U.S. 6 on Wednesday
were headed for Oklahoma to be used in seismic explorations for
gas and oil formations
By Paul Beebe The Salt Lake Tribune
The material aboard a truck that blew up in Spanish Fork
Canyon on Wednesday was made at plant in Spanish Fork that pumps
out more than 4 million pounds of explosives a year.
Known as a pentolite explosive, the deadly substance is a
mixture of TNT and PETN, a powerful explosive sometimes used in
land mines and detonation cords.
"One of the benefits is that it's extremely impact-sensitive.
But obviously, as with all explosives, it has a sensitivity to
flame and extreme heat," said Peter Barnett, general manager of
the Ensign-Bickford Co. plant, which has sat at the canyon's
mouth since 1940.
On Wednesday, the truck was speeding uphill under a load of
pentolite weighing almost 18 tons. The material had been formed
into cast boosters - seismic charges used for oil and gas
exploration. Cast boosters are inserted in bore holes drilled
into promising geologic formations. Scientists use the resulting
blast waves to create three-dimensional pictures of underground
rock structures that may hold hydrocarbons.
To make cast boosters, Ensign-Bickford employees melt a
mixture of TNT and PETN, one of the strongest known high
explosives. PETN - pentaerythritol tetranitrate - is used in
some land mines and as the explosive core of detonation cord.
The mixture is poured into orange plastic canisters that are
loaded onto flatbed trucks and shipped to customers across North
America. On Wednesday, the truck operated by R Trucking Inc. of
Joplin, Mo., left the plant at about 1:10 p.m., bound for the
Oklahoma oil fields. On board were hundreds of canisters in two
sizes, one weighing 5.5 pounds, the other 2.5 pounds.
At around 1:35 p.m., a security guard heard a radio report
that the truck had flipped over and the pentolite had exploded.
"We were pretty surprised. We were very shocked," Barnett
said.
Barnett said R's chief executive officer, Daryl Deel, was
coming to Utah on Wednesday to talk to the driver and his
partner. Deal and other R executives did not return telephone
calls seeking comment.
"I'm assuming they are going to handle this professionally.
Obviously, this is something we will consider seriously. But
it's premature for me to say one way or another" whether
Ensign-Bickford will continue to ship explosives on R trucks.
The canisters were purchased by Buckley Powder Co., an
Englewood, Colo.-based explosives distributor with operations in
Oklahoma, Barnett said.
Buckley President Steve Buckley acknowledged his company buys
explosives from the Ensign-Bickford plant. But he said he didn't
know if the load aboard the truck belonged to Buckley.
"We don't take possession until they are dropped off,"
Buckley said. "I have not been told that it was going to us."
Ensign-Bickford's headquarters is in Simsbury, Conn. Its
western sales and seismic exploration sales offices are on
Highway 6 in Spanish Fork. The plant employs about 100 people.
It was built to serve Utah's mining industry, but now ships to
buyers as far away as Canada.
"We probably make at least 4 million pounds of explosives a
year. Four to 5 million is a typical year," Bennett said.
He said the plant makes PETN, while the TNT is salvaged from
decommissioned NATO explosives. Most of it is imported from
Europe.
"It's bought from an intermediary. We get the material in a
cardboard box," Bennett said.
R reportedly is the second-biggest munitions hauler in the
trucking industry, with fleet operations across the United
States and Canada.
About half of the company's revenues comes from handling
arms, ammunition and explosives for the Department of Defense,
according to Drivers magazine.
The rest is earned by transporting explosives for the
construction and mining industries and low-level radioactive
waste for other clients.
© Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
37 NRC: Notice of Environmental Assessment Related to the Issuance of a
FR Doc E5-4372
[Federal Register: August 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 155)]
[Notices] [Page 47264-47267] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12au05-130]
License Amendment to Byproduct Material License No. 34-00507-16,
for the National Aeronautics And Space Administration, Cleveland,
OH AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant
Impact for license amendment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George M. McCann, Senior Health
Physicist, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials
Safety, Region III, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2443
Warrenville Road, Lisle, Illinois 60532-4352; telephone: (630)
829- 9856; or by e-mail at gmm@nrc.gov.
[[Page 47265]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of an
amendment to NRC materials license No.
34-00507-16 to allow the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), the licensee, to temporarily store seven
activated control rods containing cadmium in a commercially
available on-site storage container on an outdoor storage pad
located at its Plum Brook Station, a federal reservation, in
Sandusky, Ohio. 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
determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is
appropriate.
II. Environmental Assessment Background The licensee submitted a
license amendment to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
by letter dated December 15, 2004 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML043560196). The licensee requested that the NRC approve the
temporary storage of seven activated control rods containing
cadmium in two commercially available ``on-site storage
containers'' (one inside the other) on an outdoor pad, located at
its Plum Brook Station in Sandusky, Ohio. The control rods are
from the licensee's former Plum Brook Research Reactor facility,
which is currently undergoing decommissioning. The NRC is
considering the issuance of an amendment to the licensee's John
H. Glenn Research Center materials license 34-00507-16, which
currently authorizes NASA to possess byproduct materials for
research and development activities at its research facilities,
which are also located at the Plum Brook Station Federal
Reservation. If approved by the NRC, the licensee will be
authorized to possess, for temporary storage, the activated
control rods in commercially available on site storage containers
on an outdoor pad.
The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support
of this licensing action in accordance with the requirements of
title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 51,
``Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and
Related Regulatory Functions.'' The EA was developed to provide
sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to
prepare an Environmental Impact Statement or Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI). Based on the results of the EA, the
NRC has determined that a FONSI is appropriate.
Proposed Action The proposed action is to grant an amendment to
license No.
34- 00507-16 that would allow the licensee to store the activated
control rods in two commercially available on-site storage
containers (one inside the other) on an outdoor storage pad in
accordance with 10 CFR part 30, ``Rules of General Applicability
to Domestic Licensing of Byproduct Material,'' and 10 CFR part
20, ``Standards for Protection Against Radiation,'' and related
NRC guidance documents. The NASA John H. Glenn Research Center
currently possesses two NRC reactor licenses (TR-3 and R-93), and
one byproduct materials license authorizing activities at the
Plum Brook Station facility. The licensee proposes to transfer
possession of the activated control rods from the reactor license
to the byproduct materials license. The responsibility for
storage and oversight of the control rods will remain with NASA,
but will be transferred to the NASA John H. Glenn Research
Center's byproduct material license.
The Need for the Proposed Action The licensee is requesting this
license amendment for the temporary storage of the activated rods
to facilitate the decommissioning of its Plum Brook Reactor
Facility, which was shutdown in 1973. The licensee's
decommissioning plan for the Plum Brook Reactor Facility was
approved by the NRC on March 20, 2002 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML020390069). The licensee is required by license condition to
complete decommissioning of the reactor site by December 31,
2007. The licensee must conduct remedial action status surveys to
ensure that the contaminated material has been removed to levels
consistent with limits for unrestricted release specified in 10
CFR part 20 subpart E, ``Radiological Criteria for License
Termination,'' section 20.1401, ``General Provisions and Scope''
which limits the total dose for unrestricted release to 25
millirem per year. After the Commission verifies that the release
criteria have been met, the reactor license will be terminated.
However, the licensee has determined that the activated rods are
categorized as a ``Class C'' waste per 10 CFR 61.55, ``Waste
Classification,'' based upon their radiological composition. The
presence of the cadmium modifies the waste categorization to a
``Mixed Class C'' waste, and currently there are no disposal
sites commercially available for such wastes. Thus, the continued
presence of the activated control rods on the Plum Brook Reactor
Facility site could prevent NASA from meeting the December 31,
2007, completion date.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action There are two possible
alternatives to the proposed action of allowing the on-site
transfer of the control rods between the two NASA licenses at the
Plum Brook Station. The first option is no action, and the second
is to have the cadmium separated from the activated stainless
steel with the endpoint being a Class C waste that would not be
classified as a toxic waste. The licensee indicated in a letter
dated May 25, 2005 (ADAMS Accession No. ML051930478), that the
licensee did not think it was necessary to continue pursuing this
reprocessing pathway, which would be costly, and the outcome of
which would be uncertain. Rather, the licensee believes that it
is in the best interest of the government to transfer the control
rods to one of the appropriate U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
disposal sites, once they become available. Under the no-action
alternative, the rods would remain under the authority of NASA's
NRC reactor license. Denial of the license amendment request
would result in no change to current conditions at the facility.
Neither of the alternatives are acceptable because they could
result in the licensee being in violation of its NRC reactor
license, which requires the licensee to decommission its Plum
Brook Reactor Facility by December 31, 2007. The alternatives
would also impose an unnecessary regulatory burden and limit
potential benefits from future use of the former reactor site.
Also, as discussed below, there are minimal, if any, effects from
the proposed action to establish the temporary interim storage
area. Thus, the alternatives are not considered reasonable or
cost effective, and they are not addressed any further in this
environmental assessment.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The objective of the
temporary storage pad is to accommodate and ensure continued
decommissioning of a former NASA reactor site.
The presence of the activated control rods could delay
termination of the reactor license. The movement of the rods from
the reactor site for storage in a commercially available on-site
storage container on the temporary pad is considered an interim
measure, and NASA is required by license commitments (see, e.g.
letter dated May 25, 2005 (ADAMS Accession No. ML051930478)), and
NRC license
[[Page 47266]] condition, to find an appropriate disposal site as
expeditiously as possible, but no later than the year 2010. The
storage of the control rods will not involve any physical or
chemical work, which could damage or change the integrity of the
solid metal control rods. The licensee's license also does not
authorize any processing or destructive work on the control rods
in any way, such that under normal conditions radioactive
materials will not be released.
The 6400 acres that comprise the Plum Brook Station Federal
Reservation are surrounded by a ten-feet high chain-link fence
with barbed wire. The federal reservation can be accessed only
through guarded gates. The site also possesses an on-site
security force. The temporary rod storage pad is located to the
south of the Plum Brook Station's Building 9209, Shipping and
Receiving Building, in the ``Excess Materials Storage Yard.''
This storage yard is surrounded by a chain-link security fence.
Both the Excess Materials Storage Yard and the on-site storage
container can be accessed only by designated persons with keys to
locked gates.
The concrete storage pad is 18 inches thick, and 17 feet square,
and is surrounded by its own 8 feet high and 24 feet square
chain-link security fence. The on-site storage container was
manufactured by Dufrane Nuclear Shielding, Inc., and is
identified as a ``Secure Environmental Container,'' Model
8-120-H. The seven activated control rods, which weigh 45 pounds
each, will be placed in a commercially available polyethylene
high integrity container, manufactured by Dufrane, Model OP-246,
and will be placed in the on-site storage container.
The pad site was selected and evaluated by a NASA Senior Project
Engineer (Professional Engineer). The location chosen is a
gravel- covered yard, which has been used as a large equipment
lay down area since the 1960s. The Senior Project Engineer
evaluated the pad and the effects of the loading of the
commercially available on-site storage container on it to
ascertain whether the pad could adequately hold the weight
without detrimental shifting or sinking. The Senior Project
Engineer, in a February 16, 2005, memorandum (ADAMS Accession No.
ML052130172), certified ``that the soil and concrete pad can
accommodate the weight of the secure environmental container for
the foreseeable storage period.'' The activated control rods are
constructed primarily of stainless steel, with some cadmium. The
radiological activation constituents of the rods were identified
as: hydrogen-3, carbon-14, iron-55, nickel-59, cobalt-60,
nickel-63, niobium-94, and technetium-99.
The on-site storage container offers at least five inches of lead
equivalent shielding. The dose rates on contact with the on-site
storage container are estimated to be approximately ten millirem
per hour. The perimeter fence around the on-site storage
container was placed at a distance, based on radiation dose
projections, such that the need for controlling access to areas
around the on-site storage container for radiation protection
purposes is not necessary.
The licensee determined, using a computer radiation shielding
modeling program, that the estimated dose rate at the perimeter
fence will be well below the two millirem in any one hour limit
as specified in 10 CFR part 20, subpart D, ``Radiation Dose
Limits for Individual Members of the Public.'' The NRC staff also
considered potential impacts on air quality, groundwater, and
surface water runoff. The radioactive materials will be monitored
and controlled by implementation of the NRC-approved radiation
protection program, along with a license restriction which
precludes physical work on the activated control rods. Together
with the limitation of on-site storage in a commercially designed
shielded secure environmental container in an access-controlled
storage area, these controls provide assurance that the
radioactive materials will not have any impacts on air quality,
groundwater, or surface water runoff.
The NRC staff has also considered other resources not impacted,
such as transportation, potential noise, or socioeconomic
effects. Again, based on the small size of the storage area, the
limited handling of the control rods, NASA's ongoing industrial
and research operations, and previous use of the facility at the
site of the proposed action, potential noise, socioeconomic, or
transportation effects are considered unlikely. Therefore, no
further consideration for these areas is considered necessary.
The licensee will utilize an area that is currently being used
for storage of construction and industrial material and the area
is of small size (17 feet square), and there is no processing of
radioactive materials. Physical barriers will be in place to
prevent the release of radioactive material into the environment.
These barriers would also prevent wildlife access. Therefore, NRC
staff has determined that the proposed action will not affect
listed species or critical habitats.
Conclusion The staff has examined the licensee's request and the
information provided in support of its request, which included
security, audits, environmental impacts on the storage container,
and the dose modeling data performed to demonstrate compliance
with radiation protection criteria for persons working in and
around the storage area.
Based on its review of the specific proposed activities
associated with the transfer of the control rods from the
authority of the John H.
Glenn Research Center's Plum Brook Reactor Facility license to
the John H. Glenn Research Center's byproduct material license
No.
34-00507-16, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action
will not increase the probability or consequences of accidents,
no changes are being made in the types of any effluents that may
be released off site, and there is no significant increase in
occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are
no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with
the proposed action.
Agencies and Persons Contacted The NRC staff has determined that
the proposed action will not affect listed species or critical
habitats. Therefore, no further consultation is required under
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Likewise, the NRC staff
has determined that the proposed action is not a type of activity
that has potential to cause effect on historic properties.
Therefore, consultation under section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act is not required.
The NRC consulted with the Ohio Department of Health, Bureau of
Radiation Protection. The Ohio Department of Health was provided
the draft EA for comment on July 13, 2005. The State responded
back to the NRC on July 18, 2005, and indicated the following:
``Provided all license conditions and commitments remain intact,
the Ohio Department of Health, Bureau of Radiation Protection
concurs with the NRC's Finding of No Significant Impact from the
Environmental Assessment related to the issuance of a license
amendment to NASA's byproduct material license No. 34-00507-16.''
The NRC staff did not make any deletions to the NASA's license,
but did add the following license condition, ``The licensee will
continue to take all actions within its ability to dispose of its
material and notify NRC within 30 days if disposal is achieved.''
[[Page 47267]] III. Finding of No Significant Impact Pursuant to
10 CFR part 51, the NRC staff has considered the environmental
consequences of the proposed action to allow the licensee to
amend its license for the temporary storage of the activated
control rods. On the basis of this EA, the NRC staff concludes
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on
the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has
determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for
the proposed action.
IV. Further Information A copy of this document will be available
electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document
Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of
the NRC's document system.
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 following references
are available for inspection at NRC's Public Electronic Reading
Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public
Electronic Reading Room).
1. Blotzer, Michael J., NASA letter to the NRC dated September 8,
2004, ``requesting license amendment for possession and storage
of seven control rods from the Plum Brook Research Reactor (ADAMS
Accession No. ML042590171).'' 2. Kortes, Trudy E., NEPA Program
Manager, NASA Glenn Research Center, email dated March 3, 2005,
``PRBF Rod Storage/NEPA issue'' (ADAMS Accession No.
ML052130148). 3. Blasio, Chris, Radiation Safety Officer, John H.
Glenn Research Center, NASA, facsimile to NRC dated March 21,
2005, ``Maintenance Plan and PE letter for OSSC holding control
rods'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML052130155).
4. NRC Telephone Conversation record dated April 27, 2005,
documenting call with Christopher Blasio, Radiation Safety
Officer, John H. Glenn Research Center, ``Request for Additional
Information Regarding Request for a Possession Only License
Authorization for Activated Cadmium Control Rods on a Temporary
Storage Pad'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML052130155). 5. McCann,
George M., Senior Health Physicist, Decommissioning Branch,
Division of Nuclear Material Safety, NRC Region III, email dated
April 29, 2005, ``Additional Information (Regarding pad and
Microshield data)'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML052130213). 6. Blasio,
Christopher, Radiation Safety Officer, John H. Glenn Research
Center, NASA, e-mail dated May 6, 2005, ``Additional Information
(1. Pad design, 2. Microshield calculations, and 3.
Updated/survey sheet for On Site Storage Container)'' (ADAMS
Accession No. ML052130217). 7. Blasio, Christopher J., Radiation
Safety Officer, NASA John H. Glenn Research Center, letter dated
May 25, 2005, ``Resubmission of additional information to Control
No. 314017, Docket No. 030-05626 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML051930478).'' 8. NRC, NUREG-1748, ``Environmental Review
Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated With NMSS Programs,''
July 2003.
9. NRC, NUREG-1757, ``Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning
Guidance,'' Volumes 1-3, September 2003.
10. NRC, Policy and Guidance Directive (PG) 1-27, Revision 0,
``Reviewing Requests to Convert Active Licenses to
Possession-Only Licenses,'' February 22, 2000.
11. NRC, Policy and Guidance Directive, PG-9-12, ``Reviewing
Efforts to Dispose of Licensed Material and Requesting DOE
Assistance.'' 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 (800) 397-4209,
(301) 415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. 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 Lisle, Illinois, this 5th day of August 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jamnes L. Cameron, Chief, Decommissioning Branch, Division of
Nuclear Materials Safety, Region III.
[FR Doc. E5-4372 Filed 8-11-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
38 NRC: In the Matter of Stanley Pitts; Order Prohibiting Involvement in
FR Doc E5-4373
[Federal Register: August 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 155)]
[Notices] [Page 47263-47264] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12au05-129]
NRC-Licensed Activities (Effective Immediately) I Stanley Pitts
(Mr. Pitts) was formerly employed as a fully qualified technician
and authorized nuclear gauge operator by Professional Inspection
and Testing Services, Inc. (Licensee) of Chambersburg,
Pennsylvania. Professional Inspection and Testing Services, Inc.,
holds License No. 37-28744-01 issued by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission pursuant to 10 CFR part 30 on August 4, 1999. The
license authorized the possession and use of cesium-137 and
americium- 241 sealed sources to be used in portable gauging
devices in accordance with the conditions specified therein.
II On April 7, 2004, the Licensee reported to the NRC that a
Troxler Model 3430 moisture/density gauge (Serial No. 75-5183)
containing 9 mCi of cesium-137 and 44 mCi of americium-241
(NRC-licensed radioactive material) was unaccounted for and
considered stolen by an employee/ authorized user, (namely, Mr.
Pitts) who was performing work at a temporary job site in Prince
George's County, Maryland. This nuclear gauge, along with other
licensee property, was last known to have been used by Mr. Pitts
on March 25, 2004. The gauge was recovered in Bladensburg,
Maryland by police on April 15, 2004, in an apartment formerly
occupied by Mr. Pitts. Neither the licensee nor the police were
able to locate Mr. Pitts and an arrest warrant was issued
regarding the theft of company property that belonged to
Professional Inspection and Testing Services, Inc. As of the date
of this Order, Mr. Pitts remains a fugitive with an outstanding
arrest warrant.
The NRC Office of Investigations (OI) conducted an investigation
into the reported loss of the nuclear gauge. OI Report No.
1-2004-027 was issued on February 9, 2005. Information developed
during that investigation verified that Mr. Pitts was authorized
by the Licensee to use their licensed moisture/density gauges
until April 2, 2004, when his employment was terminated by the
Licensee. Based on the evidence developed during the
investigation, the NRC concluded that Mr.
Pitts possessed the nuclear gauge for a period of approximately
13 days after April 2, 2004, when he was no longer employed by
the Licensee and was not authorized by the Licensee nor licensed
by the NRC as required under 10 CFR part 30. Additionally, Mr.
Pitts did not maintain control of the nuclear gauge resulting in
the loss of NRC licensed radioactive material in the public
domain for approximately twenty-one days.
III Based on the above, the NRC concludes that Mr. Pitts, a
former employee of the Licensee, deliberately violated 10 CFR
30.3 when he apparently had stolen and illegally possessed the
portable gauging device containing licensed radioactive material
that belonged to Professional Inspection and Testing Services,
Inc. 10 CFR 30.3 requires that no person shall manufacture,
produce, transfer, receive, acquire, own, possess, or use
byproduct material except as authorized in a specific or general
license. The NRC must be able to rely on its licensees, and
employees of licensees, to comply with NRC requirements,
including the requirement that licensed material cannot be
acquired, possessed or transferred without a specific or general
license.
The deliberate violation of 10
[[Page 47264]] CFR 30.3 by Mr. Pitts, as discussed above, has
raised serious doubt as to whether he can be relied upon to
comply with NRC requirements in the future.
Consequently, I lack the requisite reasonable assurance that
licensed activities can be conducted in compliance with the
Commission's requirements and that the health and safety of the
public will be protected if Mr. Pitts were permitted at this time
to be involved in NRC-licensed activities. Therefore, the public
health, safety and interest require that Mr. Pitts be prohibited
from any involvement in NRC-licensed activities for a period of
five (5) years from the date of this Order. Furthermore, pursuant
to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that the significance of Mr. Pitts's
conduct described above is such that the public health, safety
and interest require that this Order be immediately effective.
IV Accordingly, pursuant to sections 81, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182
and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the
Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, 10 CFR 30.10, and 10
CFR 150.20, it is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that: 1.
Stanley Pitts is prohibited for five (5) years from the date of
this Order from engaging in NRC-licensed activities.
NRC-licensed activities are those activities that are conducted
pursuant to a specific or general license issued by the NRC,
including, but not limited to, those activities of Agreement
State licensees conducted pursuant to the authority granted by 10
CFR 150.20. 2. If Mr. Pitts is currently involved in NRC-licensed
activities, he must immediately cease those activities, and
inform the NRC of the name, address and telephone number of the
employer, and provide a copy of this order to the employer.
3. Subsequent to expiration of the five year prohibition, Mr.
Stanley Pitts shall, for the next five years and within 20 days
of acceptance of his first employment offer involving
NRC-licensed activities or his becoming involved in NRC-licensed
activities, as defined in Paragraph IV.1 above, provide notice to
the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555, of the name, address, and
telephone number of the employer or entity where he is, or will
be, involved in the NRC-licensed activities. In the notification,
Stanley Pitts shall include a statement of his commitment to
compliance with regulatory requirements and the basis why the
Commission should have confidence that he will now comply with
applicable NRC requirements.
The Director, Office of Enforcement, may, in writing, relax or
rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by Mr.
Pitts of good cause.
V In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Stanley Pitts must, and any
other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an
answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order,
within 20 days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is
shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to
request a hearing. A request for extension of time must be made
in writing to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a
statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent
to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the
answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation,
specifically admit or deny each allegation or charge made in this
Order and shall set forth the matters of fact and law on which
Mr. Pitts or other person adversely affected relies and the
reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any
answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Attn: Rulemakings
and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555.
Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Enforcement,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the
Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and
Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional Administrator,
NRC Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania,
and to Mr. Pitts if the answer or hearing request is by a person
other than Mr. Pitts. Because of continuing disruptions in
delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is
requested that answers and requests for hearing be transmitted to
the Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile
transmission to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail to
hearingdocket@nrc.gov and also to the Office of the General
Counsel either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725
or by e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. If a person other than Mr.
Pitts requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with
particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely
affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth
in 10 CFR 2.309. If a hearing is requested by Mr. Pitts or a
person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will
issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If
a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing
shall be whether this Order should be sustained.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(I), Mr. Pitts, may, in addition to
demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner,
move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate
effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order,
including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on
adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations,
or error.
In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of
an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the
provisions specified in Section IV above shall be final 20 days
from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings.
If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been
approved, the provisions specified in Section IV shall be final
when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been
received. An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the
immediate effectiveness of this order.
Dated this 2nd day of August, 2005.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Martin J. Virgilio, Deputy Executive Director for Materials,
Research, State and Compliance Programs.
[FR Doc. E5-4373 Filed 8-11-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
39 Cape Cod Times: Island police carry radiation meters
(August 12, 2005)
By KEVIN DENNEHY
STAFF WRITER
WEST TISBURY - Sometimes it seems the problems of the mainland
don't apply on this stylish island where beachfront bungalows
have ballooned into mansions and locals ask, just half-joking,
''So, what's happening in the real world?''
But the pager-sized radiation meters suddenly attached at the
hip of every island police officer this week are a reminder that
the real world isn't so far away after all.
It's not that terrorists have threatened Martha's Vineyard, and
few here expect it would be a first target.
But if a nuclear calamity did happen - in New York City, for
instance, or even the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth
- islanders figure they should be especially concerned about a
response.
Because if calamity comes, there's no highway off Martha's
Vineyard.
Knowing that a nuclear incident anywhere in the Northeast would
likely trigger chaos on this island, local police departments
have adopted so-called Nukalert devices to ease concerns.
The units, which are the size of a contact lens case and cost
$160 each, were donated to the island's 40 full-time police
officers by a group called Physicians for Civil Defense.
Essentially, the devices begin chirping if radiation creeps to
an unhealthy level. One chirp means a person has about 40 hours
to find shelter before radiation sickness would begin.
A series of 10 chirps, and it's more like a matter of minutes,
said Shane Connor, founder of KI4U, a Texas-based manufacturer
of ''civil defense'' items that has sold more than 20,000 of
these radiation meters since securing a patent in 2003.
Truth be told, there's little chance the devices will ever
begin chirping wildly on Martha's Vineyard, said Judith Sibert,
director of emergency management for the town of West Tisbury.
Even an incident at Pilgrim, the nuclear plant about 40 miles
away, likely would not pose much public health threat here, she
said.
But that's the point. Rather than watch the entire island
scramble to boats in a panic, the town's six police departments
hope that blanket coverage of radiation meters will provide
assurance on an island where the year-round population jumps
from 15,000 to well over 100,000 on some summer days.
The best plan, she said, would be to find shelter and lie low.
''We don't want people jumping in personal boats and getting
out on the water,'' Sibert said the other day outside her West
Tisbury offices, a small radiation meter dangling on her key
chain. ''And if you take the ferry, you're headed right toward
the radiation. A big part of the plan is to educate the public
as soon as possible.''
On a sun-splashed Oak Bluffs afternoon this week, vacationers
lounged on the decks of boats and enjoyed cocktails with their
lunches. At least outwardly, thoughts of the apocalypse didn't
appear to consume many of them.
''Doesn't really concern me,'' said Patricia Higgins of
Ashland, when asked about radiation interrupting her vacation.
''But when you think about it, I don't know where you'd go.''
Actually, Steve Jones, a summer resident of Chappaquiddick, has
thought about it - a lot. A house painter who was a nuclear arms
technician with the Navy during the Vietnam war, Jones helped
get the radiation detectors into the hands of the island police
this summer.
Back in 1942, he says, his mother survived a fire at the
Cocoanut Grove nightclub in Boston, a disaster that took nearly
500 lives.
He says a radioactive incident in Boston or New York would
likely only be a threat on the island if it caused a panic. For
many, he expects, the instinct would be to get off the island.
''The first thing everyone would do is rush for the boats.
That's why so many people died (at the Cocoanut Grove). Not
because of the fire, but because of the panic.''
If you'd asked Antone Bettencourt a few years ago if
firefighters on Martha's Vineyard should carry radiation
detectors, he admits now, he would have looked at you funny.
''You know, if this happened before 9/11, people wouldn't take
it too seriously,'' said Bettencourt, chief of the Edgartown
Fire Department, where the radiation meters now sit in each
ambulance. ''Now you're aware this stuff can happen anywhere, at
any time.''
Kevin Dennehy can be reached at kdennehy@capecodonline.com.
(Published: August 12, 2005)
Copyright © 2005 Cape Cod Times. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
40 Hawk Eye Newspaper: IAAP workers receive guidance
Friday, August 12, 2005 Site updated daily at 11 a.m. CST
Event planned for Thursday at SCC.
The Hawk Eye
WEST BURLINGTON — A consumer protection event next week will
offer guidance to former Iowa Army Ammunition Plant workers soon
to receive compensation checks from the federal government.
The event, planned by the office of Sen. Tom Harkin, D–Iowa,
runs from 2 to 7 p.m. Thursday in Room 406 at Southeastern
Community College.
Representatives from state and private agencies will give
presentations at 2:30 and 5:30 p.m. about consumer protection
and finances.
The agencies also will have booths providing more detailed
information.
A press release sent Thursday from Harkin's office said the
event was scheduled with everyone in mind, but the information
will be especially relevant for former ammunition plant workers.
The Department of Energy and Atomic Energy Commission built
nuclear weapons components at the 19,000–acre plant for much of
the Cold War.
Congress and the Department of Health and Human Services
recently approved automatic $150,000 payments to men and women
who developed cancer after working in the nuclear program.
Survivors of deceased workers are also eligible for
compensation, although the program is limited to 22 specific
cancers government scientists link to radiation exposure.
The first compensation checks are making their way through
federal channels, a staffer in Harkin's office said Thursday.
The list of representatives who will be present includes Rod
Reynolds, an assistant attorney general for the state of Iowa;
Phyllis Zalenski, family resource management specialist for the
Iowa State Extension Service; Gary Marquette, deputy bureau
chief of consumer affairs for the Iowa Securities Bureau; Lee
Sellmeyer, consumer counselor for the Iowa Securities Bureau;
Wendy Wicks and Dianne Taylor from the Iowa Credit Union League;
and David Beckman from the Iowa Bar Association.
The consumer protection event is scheduled on the heels of two
Department of Labor meetings Tuesday and Wednesday in
Burlington. Labor officials will explain Part E of the Energy
Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, which
offers financial benefits to former nuclear weapons workers
exposed to toxic chemicals.
Those meetings are scheduled at 7 p.m. Tuesday and 1 p.m.
Wednesday at the Grand Orleans Hotel, 2759 Mount Pleasant St.
The Hawk Eye 800 S. Main St., Burlington, Iowa 52601 319-754-8461
· 1-800-397-1708 · FAX 319-754-6824 · webmaster@thehawkeye.com
*****************************************************************
41 Beaver County Times: Residents near nuke plant to get iodide pills
08/12/2005 -
Larissa Theodore, Times Staff
Free potassium iodide pills will be distributed today for
residents living or working within 10 miles of the Beaver Valley
Nuclear Power Station in Shippingport.
The statewide distribution program targets more than 640,000
state residents who live or work within a 10-mile radius of the
state's five nuclear power plants.
Richard McGarvey, state Department of Health spokesman, said
this year marks the fourth distribution since the program began
in 2002, when the state received 1.9 million tablets from the
federal government to distribute to state residents.
In the event of a radiation release, the pills are designed to
partially protect the thyroid gland against harmful effects of
radiation during an emergency. The tablets are only to be taken
at the governor's order, and protection from a pill lasts for 24
hours.
The latest distribution is particularly aimed at those who
didn't get pills before, lost their pills or recently relocated
to the area, McGarvey said.
Iodide tablets will be distributed locally from 10 a.m. to 6
p.m. at the state Department of Health's office at 300 S. Walnut
Lane in Vanport Township.
Residents with proof of address can pick up the tiny, foiled
wrapped tablets for themselves and can sign to pick up for
family members.
Tablets from previous distributions don't need to be replaced
since the pills have a shelf life of at least five years.
McGarvey said the state has given out about 881,000 pills so far
and has reached about 45 percent of the target population living
near nuclear plants.
Residents who are unable to pick up pills today can receive them
anytime by calling the state health department at (877)
PA-HEALTH.
Larissa Theodore can be reached online
atltheodore@timesonline.com.
©Beaver County Times Allegheny Times 2005
*****************************************************************
42 asahi.com: Barefoot Gen' author retraces his steps in Hiroshima
08/12/2005 By HAJIME TAKEDA
The Asahi Shimbun
The manga classic "Hadashi no Gen" (Barefoot Gen) recounts the
bombing of Hiroshima and its aftermath from the perspective of a
young boy called Gen and his family.
The harrowing story is based on the experiences of the author,
66-year-old Keiji Nakazawa.
Young Gen is in the first grade at an elementary school in
wartime Hiroshima. At the moment of the blinding atomic flash,
Gen is miraculously saved from instant death.
He happens to be standing by a concrete gatepost at the entrance
to his school, and it shields Gen-the real-life Nakazawa-from
searing heat from the blast.
The elementary school that Nakazawa attended was only 1.3
kilometers from ground zero. The school was flattened in the
explosion. In the ensuing years, no one gave any thought to the
gatepost and it was considered lost.
Then, nearly 60 years after the end of World War II, the
gatepost that saved Nakazawa's life was discovered in the school
grounds.
In 1945, Nakazawa was a first-grader at Kanzaki Kokumin Gakko
(Kanzaki Elementary School) in what is now Chuo Ward. On that
Monday morning of Aug. 6, he was heading to school with his
satchel on his back.
Just as he was about to enter the back gate, Nakazawa was
stopped by a classmate's mother.
She asked, "Are the first-grade classes being held at the school
today or at the temple?"
Nakazawa, standing with his back to the gatepost, was looking up
as he answered her. He noticed a shining silver B-29 bomber
moving high in the sky.
Seconds later, a gleaming white ball of fire exploded, and he
lost consciousness.
"When I came to, I was lying under a collapsed wall. It was
pitch dark, as if night had fallen," recalls the author.
"My classmate's mother had been blown away. Her charred body was
lying dozens of meters away."
The gatepost had shielded him from the horror that took the
lives of tens of thousands of city residents. He suffered only
burns to the back of his head and neck.
Had he been even 1 meter away, Nakazawa would have been killed.
After the war, Nakazawa transferred to Honkawa Elementary School
in Hiroshima. At 22, he headed for Tokyo, with dreams of
becoming a cartoonist.
In 1973, his autobiographical series, "Barefoot Gen," began
running in the Shonen Jump manga weekly.
Nakazawa created the story of Gen, a boy who lost his father and
siblings in the bombing, but who had himself survived, taking
the hardships, poverty and later discrimination all in his
stride.
Apart from changing the school's name to the fictional "Kamiyama
Kokumin Gakko," Nakazawa stuck to the facts, faithfully relating
all he knew of the tragedy and the days before and after it.
The dramatic scene at the gate as the bomb fell was
unforgettable.
The serial later switched to another manga magazine, running
weekly until 1987. In book form, the "Barefoot Gen" series was
published by Chobunsha and other companies, selling more than 7
million copies.
The entire series has been translated into English, Russian and
Korean. Gen's story has also been turned into an animated film
and adapted into a stage musical.
Meanwhile, Kanzaki Elementary School reopened in 1950 and moved
to a new site, several dozen meters from the original spot. The
gatepost seemed to have been lost in the confusion.
About five years ago, Shunzo Matsuo, 74, a neighborhood resident
who had a grandchild attending Kanzaki Elementary School,
happened to notice the gatepost. It was lying broken in two
pieces, hidden in a wooded area near the playground.
Before the bombing, "I used to slip inside the school playground
almost every day through the back gate to practice walking on
stilts. I recognized (the gatepost) right away," Matsuo
recalled.
Matsuo's father ran a tofu shop in the neighborhood. His father,
older sister and brother all perished in the bombing.
Recently, Matsuo, who heads a local senior citizens club, was
asked by school officials to be a tour guide for a group of
junior high students visiting Hiroshima. One student asked,
"Where is Gen's gatepost?"
Last year, Matsuo organized support for the idea of turning the
pillar into a monument, and the school and residents chipped in
to lease a crane to place it near its former location. In March,
the gatepost was erected inside the hedge right by the front
gate, where children pass by every day. A hand-lettered marker
nearby tells its story.
Nakazawa, who lives in Saitama Prefecture, traveled to Hiroshima
last month to see it, 60 years later.
"Most students inside the school grounds, or inside their
classrooms, were killed on the spot. Only I and one other
student survived from my class," Nakazawa said.
"But for that chance meeting at the back gate, Gen would have
never existed."
The artist added: "As a survivor of that horror, I am on a
mission. It is my duty to tell future generations: Never, ever
resort to nuclear weapons. Fighting wars is wrong."(IHT/Asahi:
August 12,2005)
[Copyright Asahi Shimbun. All rights
*****************************************************************
43 Guardian Unlimited Lawyer: Nuke Waste Put Community at Risk
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Friday August 12, 2005 10:16 AM
By JILL BARTON
Associated Press Writer
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) - An attorney claims that errors one
of Florida's biggest electric utilities made in handling nuclear
waste caused brain cancer in at least two children and may have
put an entire community at risk.
Attorney Nancy La Vista said the illnesses stem from Florida
Power &Light's daily shipments of thousands of gallons of
radioactive sludge from a St. Lucie nuclear plant to
undocumented locations in the late 1970s.
One of the boys, 11-year-old Zachary Finestone, was diagnosed
with brain cancer in March 2000. The other boy, Ashton Lowe, had
brain cancer when he died in May 2001 at age 13. La Vista is
representing their families in civil lawsuits that could begin
early next year.
``Our cancer experts say these children were exposed to
radiation,'' she said. ``The community needs to be concerned.''
FPL has acknowledged that it mistakenly shipped radioactive
waste to farmland about 10 miles west of the nuclear plant on
two occasions. But those shipments were reported when FPL
discovered the problem in September 1982, a decade before the
boys were born, said FPL spokeswoman Rachel Scott.
The utility immediately cleaned up the site, removing 6 inches
of soil from a contaminated 20-by-30-foot area. Scott said tests
by state and federal authorities have shown no health threat at
the site or in the surrounding air, soil or water.
``It's a very sad situation when families are dealing with
cancer, but there's absolutely no validity to the claim that it
has anything to do with the plant,'' Scott said.
The mistaken shipments to the farm can be traced to a plumbing
mix-up in 1977 or 1978, La Vista said. At the time, workers
believed a sink at the plant drained to a tank designated for
radioactive waste and used it to clean highly radioactive items.
But the sink instead drained into the plant's sewage disposal
system.
The potentially radioactive sewage went into a septic tank,
where it was pumped out at least daily from 1977 to 1980 and
taken to the Fort Pierce Sewage Treatment, according to
documents. Radioactive sludge that drained from the same sink
was also dumped at the farm as fertilizer in January and June
1982.
La Vista said no records exist detailing the handling or
monitoring of the nuclear waste hauled to the municipal facility
and that loads of the nuclear sludge could have been dumped at
other unidentified sites during the three-year period.
She said the frequent shipments also likely sent radioactive
material into the air, water and ground.
But Scott said that tests conducted after 1980 would have
revealed contamination that had built up in previous years.
State health officials previously reviewed a potential cluster
of childhood cancers in St. Lucie County, where both boys had
lived, after discovering 29 cases of brain and central nervous
system cancer from 1981 to 1997. Health Department officials
tested soil, air and water for 500 chemicals at the homes of the
affected children and their pregnant mothers, but found no
pattern.
But La Vista said other tests showed unusually high levels of
radioactive strontium in the boys' baby teeth.
St. Lucie County is located roughly 120 miles north of Miami.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
44 Guardian Unlimited: 56bn bill on the cards for getting rid of nuclear waste
Paul Brown, environment correspondent
Friday August 12, 2005
The Guardian
The cost of cleaning up more than 50 years of nuclear waste from
Britain's power stations and military projects has risen by £8bn
to £56bn and will rise further, Sir Anthony Cleaver, chairman of
the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, said yesterday.
If another 100 tonnes of plutonium plus thousands of tonnes of
uranium stored at Sellafield, Cumbria, are also classified as
waste, the bill will rise by a further £10bn.
The stored materials are currently guarded by armed men day and
night because of the terrorist threat.
The authority showed its first strategy document yesterday after
its launch in April as a quango charged with taking control of,
and disposing of, the UK's nuclear waste.
One departure for existing nuclear policy is the wish to bring
forward the clean-up for old reactor sites from between 80 and
100 years to 25 years.
The authority believes that if the sites are left for longer
future generations may not have the expertise for dismantling
them safely. If the job is done more quickly, it will also
provide continuity of employment and allow the sites to be used
for other purposes, possibly even the building of new reactors,
although that would be a policy decision outside the authority's
remit.
The authority is to open a new low-level waste depository at
Dounreay, and find a replacement for the existing dump at Drigg,
in Cumbria, which is filling up and will end up inundated
because of the rising sea level.
Although his role is, in theory, independent of government, Sir
Anthony made clear that certain key decisions - for example, the
future of the plutonium stockpile, and that of Thorp, the
currently crippled thermal oxide reprocessing plant at
Sellafield - would be taken by the Department of Trade and
Industry. "We can give advice but the government makes the
decisions in these key areas," he said.
Although the authority has taken over ownership of the
reprocessing works and other British Nuclear Fuels' assets, and
with the income is supposed to partly fund the clean up, the
decision on whether these plants continue to operate at all
rests with the government.
The Thorp plant has contracts with utilities in Japan and
several European countries to reprocess spent fuel into
plutonium and uranium. Because international relations are
involved, the government will not allow the authority to decide
on the economics of these operations.
The government is subsidising Thorp with £200m a year in cash
even though the plant was put out of action in May by a leak,
and no permission has been given for a restart.
Yesterday the authority said that whatever happened Thorp would
never run long enough to deal with the thousands of tonnes of
spent fuel from Britain's existing advanced gas cooled reactors.
The authority is starting an urgent assessment of how to deal
with this fuel. At present, it is taken to Sellafield in rail
flasks and kept in giant cooling ponds before reprocessing. It
seems likely this system will be abandoned but whether the
change will involve dry storage of fuel at Sellafield, has not
been decided.
The future of the yet to be fully commissioned mixed oxide fuel
(Mox) plant, where new fuel is made from plutonium and depleted
uranium, is also not yet decided.
The government has claimed the plant has a substantial order
book, but Ian Roxburgh, chief executive, said yesterday these
were not firm orders but "letters of intent" that depended on
the plant operating properly. So far it had not proved it could.
Sir Anthony also outlined the Nuclear Decommissioning
Authority's plans to privatise management of the Magnox stations
and various sites now run by the UK Atomic Energy Authority, and
British Nuclear Group, formerly British Nuclear Fuels. These
organisations, or consortiums of other engineering and nuclear
firms, would be expected to compete.
Comments on the NDA strategy document are requested by November
11 (see report at NDA)
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
45 AU ABC: Cautious support for nuclear waste dump from former ANSTO head
Friday, 12 August 2005. 16:22 (AEST)Friday, 12 August 2005.
The former head of the Australian Nuclear Science and
Technology Organisation (ANSTO) has broken her silence on the
prospect of a radioactive waste dump in the Northern Territory.
Helen Garnett is now the vice-chancellor of the Territory's
Charles Darwin University but was formerly the chief executive
officer of ANSTO.
Until now she has refused to weigh into the debate about storing
the Commonwealth's nuclear waste in the Territory.
But Ms Garnett has suggested the dump is not necessarily a bad
thing.
"I think there are technical issues which I'm quite happy to
comment on in private to people but this is an issue that I
think is being discussed broadly - it's got a number of
dimensions. I think technically I can tell you that in the right
place waste can be stored and handled," she said.
*****************************************************************
46 AU ABC: Proposed nuclear dump sites 'untested'
Friday, 12 August 2005. 20:57 (AEST)Friday, 12 August 2005.
It is not known if any of the dump sites are suitable for
underground storage.
None of the three Northern Territory sites earmarked for a
radioactive waste dump have been scientifically tested to make
sure they are suitable, the Australian Nuclear Science and
Technology Organisation (ANSTO) has revealed.
ANSTO is Australia's national nuclear research and development
organisation and is responsible for delivering specialised
advice, scientific services and products to government,
industry, academia and other research organisations.
ANSTO's chief of operations Dr Ron Cameron told a public meeting
in Darwin that no scientific criteria have been applied to the
sites.
He says the three spots were chosen because they are
Commonwealth-controlled defence land.
Dr Cameron admits all three could turn out to be geologically
unsuitable to store waste permanently in an underground
facility, known as a "repository".
"That could happen but in terms of a store, a store could
essentially be built anywhere," he said.
Dr Cameron says if the sites are unsuitable, a more temporary
above-ground store will go ahead.
"The question is would we have a store for low-level waste or a
repository for low-level waste," he said.
CLP Senator Nigel Scullion says he is surprised there has been
no testing.
*****************************************************************
47 Media Matters: Special Report hosted author of debunked radiation study to
discuss Yucca Mountain
[Media Matters for America]
Special Report with Brit Hume " FOX News Channel
Friday August 12, 2005
"Media Matters"; by Paul Waldman
In an appearance on Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume,
Cato Institute adjunct scholar Steven Milloy cited his study of
radiation levels at the U.S. Capitol Building to argue that the
health safety standards recently imposed on the proposed Yucca
Mountain, Nevada, nuclear waste repository are unduly stringent.
But Milloy's findings -- that the radiation exposure at the
Capitol is far higher than it would be at the Yucca Mountain
facility under Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) limits --
were debunked shortly after he published them in 2001.
In June 2001, the EPA announced that the proposed storage
facility in Nevada would be approved only if additional
radiation exposure to nearby residents would not exceed 15
millirem annually during the first 10,000 years. Normal
background radiation exposure amounts to approximately 360
millirem annually.
In April 2001, Milloy and his Cato Institute colleague Michael
Gough released a study purporting to show that radiation levels
at the Capitol were 65 times higher than the proposed standards
for Yucca Mountain. The conclusion of the study read as follows:
We measured radiation dose rates inside the U.S. Capitol
building and outside the Library of Congress' Thomas Jefferson
Building to be substantially greater than the dose rates
associated with background radiation, radiation from nuclear
power production, ongoing worldwide radiation exposures from the
Chernobyl accident and the radiation protection standards
proposed by the EPA for the high-level nuclear waste repository
at Yucca Mountain. Potential exposures to these radiation
sources may increase the risk of fatal cancer by as much as 0.5
percent based on EPA risk assessment practices.
In the accompanying press release, Milloy was quoted as saying:
"We hope that Sen. [Harry] Reid [D-NV] will act immediately to
protect Capitol building visitors, employees and future
generations from this radiation hazard."
When a constituent contacted a member of Congress about Milloy
and Gough's alarming findings, the architect of the Capitol
(AOC) requested that the U.S. Public Health Service investigate
the claims. But the public health officials' survey found only
"normal background radiation" in the Capitol, according to an
April 16, 2001, Roll Call article. The AOC communications
officer, Bruce Milhans, surmised that Milloy and Gough "must
have been measuring something they brought with them."
When confronted with the Public Health Service findings, Milloy
disputed the apparent discrepancy and backed off from his
characterization of the radiation levels as a "hazard." "I'm
sure that the Architect measured the same levels of radiation
that we did," Milloy said. "If you look at the study closely, I
don't really think there's anything dangerous at the Capitol at
all." These comments suggested that the radiation Milloy and
Gough measured was, in fact, normal background radiation -- not
the additional radiation that would be emitted by nuclear waste.
In a May 4, 2001, column on the Fox News website, however,
Milloy repeated his misleading comparison of radiation levels at
the Capitol and exposure standards at Yucca Mountain: "If
radiation dose rates up to 65 times higher than those planned
for Yucca Mountain aren't dangerous to Capitol building
employees and visitors, what is the point of even more stringent
standards for Yucca Mountain?"
But if the radiation rates Milloy measured at the Capitol merely
represent the average "background radiation" experienced all
over the world, then his argument is based on a flawed
comparison -- between average background radiation and the
additional radiation emitted at Yucca Mountain. The EPA's intent
in setting the radiation standards at Yucca Mountain, after all,
is to protect Nevada residents from radiation exposure beyond
what they would normally encounter.
Nonetheless, in a one-on-one interview with guest host Jim Angle
on the August 10 edition of Special Report, Milloy revived his
debunked study of radiation levels on the Capitol to argue that
the EPA's Yucca Mountain standards are "ridiculous." The
interview focused on the EPA's recent announcement of its
standards for the Nevada facility, which include the original 15
millirem exposure limit for the first 10,000 years, as well as a
250 millirem limit over the following 990,000 years. But Milloy
again set up a false comparison between background radiation
levels and the additional radiation that will be emitted by the
nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, claiming that
"someone who works at the Capitol eight hours a day is going to
be exposed to 20 times the radiation -- 20 times the radiation
-- that comes out of Yucca Mountain."
From the August 10 Special Report with Brit Hume:
MILLOY: Well, we think these standards are really ridiculous.
They're very low. As a matter of fact, so low, we went over to
the Capitol to measure the radiation --
ANGLE: The Capitol behind --
MILLOY: -- the Capitol building, coming out from statues and all
the granite and marble. You know, it's naturally occurring
radiation.
We found that someone who works at the Capitol eight hours a day
is going to be exposed to 20 times the radiation -- 20 times the
radiation -- that comes out of Yucca Mountain in a year.
ANGLE: Wait a minute. Hold on, hold on. Congress is arguing over
these standards, and we've got all these court cases, and you're
saying somebody who works in the Congress gets 20 times more in
a day?
MILLOY: Over the course of a year.
ANGLE: Over the course of a year, than you would if you were
living next door to Yucca Mountain?
MILLOY: And Yucca Mountain, right. And you really can't even
measure the amount of radiation you get out of Yucca Mountain,
because it's within the natural -- it's so far within the margin
of natural radiation exposure we get, it's really unmeasurable.
Later in the interview, Milloy suggested that the 260 millirem
of radiation he and Gough found at the Capitol was a separate
phenomenon from the "natural background exposure":
MILLOY: Well, the standard at Yucca Mountain is -- it's kind of
technical -- 15 millirems per year. You go over to the Capitol,
you're going to be exposed to as much as 260 millirems per year.
The natural background exposure is about 350 millirems. So you
can see, though, Yucca Mountain is very small in there.
Milloy has a long history of conducting scientific studies that
benefit powerful corporate lobbies -- a strategy described as
"sound science." The practice has been described in the American
Journal of Public Health as "sophisticated public relations
campaigns controlled by industry executives and lawyers whose
aim is to manipulate the standards of scientific proof to serve
the corporate interests of their clients."
Proponents of "sound science" purport to expose so-called "junk
science," which Milloy has described as "faulty scientific data
and analysis used to advance special and, often, hidden agendas"
of personal injury lawyers, social activists, government
regulators and the media." This description, as well as the
Capitol radiation study, appears on www.junkscience.com, a
website Milloy founded in 1996 in association with a nonprofit
organization called The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition
(TASSC). As journalist Chris Mooney explained in a February 29,
2004, Washington Post op-ed, the idea of "sound science"
originated at TASSC:
That use of the term goes back to a campaign waged by the
tobacco industry to undermine the indisputable connection
between smoking and disease. Industry documents released as a
result of tobacco litigation show that in 1993 Philip Morris and
its public relations firm, APCO Associates, created a nonprofit
front group called The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition
(TASSC) to fight against the regulation of cigarettes. To mask
its true purpose, TASSC assembled a range of anti-regulatory
interests under one umbrella. The group also challenged the now
widely accepted notion that secondhand smoke poses health risks.
Milloy currently writes a regular "Junk Science" column for the
Fox News website. In recent columns, he has argued that global
warming represents "flawed science," that pesticide use in
schools poses no threat to students, and that "radical
environmentalists" are the "real energy problem."
In addition to letting Milloy's viewpoint go unchallenged, Angle
ignored other issues related to radiation exposure at Yucca
Mountain. While providing a platform for Milloy's four-year-old
Capitol radiation study, Angle failed to mention the recent
revelation that government scientists may have falsified safety
studies related to the storage facility in order to meet quality
assurance standards. Emails written by the scientists suggest
that they altered documents pertaining to how quickly
radioactive material stored at Yucca Mountain would travel
outside the boundaries of the repository. Both the FBI and
Congress are investigating the allegations.
Angle also stated during his interview with Milloy that the
"whole issue" surrounding Yucca Mountain "is about exposure for
people living near the site." But the potential exposure created
by the regular transport of nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain from
facilities nationwide is also a major concern.
J.K.
Posted to the web on Friday August 12, 2005 at 12:07 PM EST
Subscribe to our newsletters to receive items via e-mail
FOX News Channel 1-888-369-4762 1211 Avenue of the Americas New
York, NY 10036
Copyright © 2004-2005 Media Matters for America. All rights
*****************************************************************
48 reviewjournal.com EDITORIAL: More crazy numbers for Yucca Mountain
Aug. 12, 2005
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal
EPA betrays science with preposterous new radiation safety
standards
Last year, when a federal court rejected the EPA's radiation
safety standards for the nuclear waste repository being built
inside Yucca Mountain, Nevada's politicians celebrated a rare
victory in their 20-year fight against the federal project.
Their lawsuit, literally their last line of defense, had
temporarily halted the digging 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
The three-judge panel said pledging to protect Nevadans from
excessive radiation exposure for 10,000 years was wholly
inadequate, because some of the radionuclides expected to be
buried inside the ridge have half-lives of millions of years.
But the ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia didn't take much issue with the science fiction the
Energy Department used to come up with that ridiculous number in
the first place. The idea that any scientist can accurately
predict the effect of tons of decaying nuclear waste on area
geology, groundwater and area radiation levels thousands of
years into the future is as absurd as a local weatherman
offering a 10,000-year forecast. Scientists can't guarantee what
might happen 10 years from now, let alone 10,000 -- there are
simply too many variables to consider.
The court's ruling effectively told the federal government to go
make up an even bigger number -- which is exactly what it did
Tuesday. In a calculation hilarious enough to have come from Dr.
Evil, the megalomaniac of comedian Mike Myers' "Austin Powers"
movies, the EPA promised Nevadans they would be safe from Yucca
Mountain radiation for a period of 1 million years.
How can the EPA and the Energy Department guarantee safe
radiation levels for so long? Their 216-page proposed regulation
boils down to this: The estimated annual average background
radiation level near the repository site is currently 350
millirem. In Colorado, the level is 700 millirem. Because people
face no radiation health risks living in the Rockies, Yucca
Mountain could vent enough radiation to double local background
levels and no one would know the difference. That's it.
All this crazy talk, which the government has backed with
billions of dollars, has been put forward because the Energy
Department and the nuclear energy industry insist on entombing
their high-level waste, rather than storing it in a manner that
makes it retrievable. Instead of developing reasonable,
short-term plans to manage the waste until new technologies are
developed to reprocess it or dispose of it in a simpler manner,
bureaucrats are actually trying to create safety regulations
that will be enforceable 1 million years into the future.
"We've never tried to regulate for this period of time," said
Kevin Crowley, director of the Nuclear and Radiation Studies
Board of the National Academy of Science. We can't imagine why.
There's nothing to suggest the judges will frown upon this new,
preposterous standard -- they asked for it.
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2005
*****************************************************************
49 reviewjournal.com LETTERS: Standards fine for Yucca's minimal health risks
Aug. 12, 2005
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal
To the editor:
The EPA's proposed health standards for a Yucca Mountain nuclear
waste repository are more than adequate ("Yucca radiation limits
unveiled," Wednesday).
They apply to a hypothetical human living less than 15 miles
from the site, where no one lives now. They enforce a level of
risk for an almost comical period of 1 million years that is no
greater than what millions of Americans live with today because
of naturally occurring radiation.
Americans, including Nevadans, have enjoyed the benefits of
nuclear energy for decades. It's time to accept this minimal
risk as the cost for reduced greenhouse gases, better homeland
security and less reliance on foreign oil and natural gas.
You accept the risk of getting in your car and driving to work
because you'd rather not walk, and the risk is small. We, as a
nation, chose and accepted the risk of nuclear energy in
exchange for its benefits. It's our responsibility to now
minimize that risk by placing its byproducts in a safe place
rather than stacked up in dozens of temporary locations near
large populations and water sources.
NIMBYs who refuse this responsibility want something for
nothing: a handout of clean and abundant electricity, a free
lunch. Or even worse, a return to horse-and-buggy days. They
should be ashamed.
Fred deSousa
LAS VEGAS
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2005
Stephens Media GroupPrivacy Statement
*****************************************************************
50 Platts: Nevada to sue EPA if proposed Yucca Mt. standard finalized
+ Nevada made it clear it will sue the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) if the proposed Yucca Mountain standard the EPA
unveiled yesterday is finalized.
Nevada Attorney General Brian Sandoval called the proposed
1-million-year radiation protection standard for a nuclear waste
repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev. "obscenely lax and dangerous."
It's as though EPA "threw up their arms and gave the project a
pass," Sandoval said. In a joint statement issued yesterday,
Sandoval and Gov. Kenny Guinn said the proposal would allow
Nevada's future residents to receive 100 times more radiation
exposure than what the federal government now permits for
residents near nuclear power plants.
The proposal applies a far stricter standard when the repository
is not leaking than when radiation releases would occur, they
said.
Washington (Platts)--10Aug2005
Copyright © 2005 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
[The McGraw-Hill Companies]
*****************************************************************
51 Tri-City Herald: DOE weighs options to start vitrification
This story was published Friday, August 12th, 2005
By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer
The Department of Energy is taking preliminary steps to see if
some of Hanford's radioactive tank waste could be treated at the
huge vitrification plant even if use of other parts of the plant
is delayed.
If that idea proves feasible, it could allow some work to
continue to empty huge underground waste tanks dating to World
War II. Delays on opening the plant also will mean delays in
emptying old tanks.
Work has slowed at the two buildings of the $5.8 billion plant
that would handle high-level radioactive waste after a new
seismic study showed design standards may be inadequate for a
severe earthquake. That and other difficulties of the plant are
expected to increase the cost of the plant by billions and delay
completion of construction and testing past a 2011 legal
deadline.
DOE's Office of River Protection has been told to submit a plan
to DOE headquarters in early September to further slow
construction by halting work affected by new earthquake design
standards.
On Thursday, Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire discussed delays
with Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, saying she was concerned
about plans to completely halt some construction, said Sheryl
Hutchison, spokeswoman for the Washington State Department of
Ecology.
The state's impression is that the delays have more to do with
the increasing price tag for the project than addressing
earthquake concerns, Hutchison said.
"If you shut down construction, it's going to be hard to get it
going again," Hutchison said.
Even if the plant still could start treating waste on schedule
in 2011, work to retrieve waste from Hanford's oldest
underground tanks already would be stopped for three years.
Hanford workers have been retrieving waste from 149 old
single-shell tanks filled with radioactive waste from the past
production of plutonium at Hanford for the nation's nuclear
weapons program. The waste is being moved to 28 newer
double-shell tanks until much of it can be turned into a sturdy
glass at the vitrification plant for permanent disposal.
The double-shell tanks are expected to be at capacity by 2008,
halting work to empty deteriorating older tanks.
"It's some of the most dangerous stuff on the planet," Hutchison
said. Vitrification has been the only reasonable alternative
identified to treat the high-level radioactive waste in the
tanks, she pointed out.
One of the facilities at the vitrification plant affected by new
earthquake design standards is the Pretreatment Facility, which
would divide tank waste into high-level waste and low-activity
waste for treatment at separate facilities.
DOE would like to study whether some tank waste could be
prepared for treatment without needing to be put through the
Pretreatment Facility, John Eschenberg, project manager for
DOE's Office of River Protection, said at a Hanford Advisory
Board committee meeting Thursday.
That could allow the High-Level Waste Facility or Low-Activity
Waste Facility to begin operating even if the Pretreatment
Facility was not ready.
Eschenberg is just beginning work to form teams to study options
and see if it would be possible to begin operating a portion of
the plant earlier than the Pretreatment Facility.
The Pretreatment Facility will begin operating, he assured board
members. But with 100 miles of piping, complex air systems and
complicated chemical procedures to separate waste, the facility
will be a formidable challenge to prepare to operate, he said.
© 2005 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
52 The Common Voice: Junk-science experts tweak Harry Reid
Steven Miller
August 12, 2005
If U.S. Senator Harry Reid honestly thinks human beings would be
at serious risk under the Environmental Protection Agencys new
radiation standards, he should immediately start clamoring for
an emergency program for the U.S. Capitol, where radiation
exceeds those standards, say junk science specialists at the
Cato Institute.
Reid lambasted newly proposed EPA standards Tuesday as the
product of "voodoo science and arbitrary numbers," calling the
criteria the latest attempt by the Bush Administration to ignore
sound science and disregard the health and safety of Nevadans."
The new EPA rules would limit exposure near the proposed Yucca
Mountain facility in Nevada to 15 millirems a year for the next
10,000 years. Recently, researchers in Washington D.C. measured
gamma radiation dose rates in a Capitol building hallway and
outside the Thomas Jefferson Building. They found that
individuals in those locations could receive anywhere from 60
millirems to 260 millirems of gamma radiation per year depending
on the exposure scenario.
"These radiation dose rates are much higher than the EPA
proposed to allow at the planned high-level nuclear waste
repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada," noted Cato Institute
researcher Steven Milloy, who administers the Institutes
junkscience.com website project.
"We hope that Sen. Reid will act immediately to protect Capitol
building visitors, employees and future generations from this
radiation hazard, said Milloy.
We've asked Sen. Reid to undertake a comprehensive radiation
survey of the Capitol and recommended that radiation hazard
signs be used until the radiation sources can be removed and
disposed in accordance with hazardous waste regulations," he
added.
The study, Radiation Sources at the U.S. Capitol and Library of
Congress Buildings, is by Milloy and Michael Gough, Ph.D. Gough
is a member of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
committee advising the U.S. Air Force on its study of the health
effects of Agent Orange. The white paper, funded by a grant from
Citizens for the Integrity of Science, is on-line at .
The Cato Institute defines "junk science" as faulty scientific
data and analysis used to further a special agenda. The junk
science "mob," says junkscience.com, includes: media, personal
injury lawyers, social activists, government regulators,
businesses, politicians, individual scientists and individuals.
In June 2001, following initial publication by EPA of radiation
standards for the Yucca Mountain repository, Reid, along with
fellow Nevada senator John Ensign, had hailed the new standards
as a milestone in the battle to allow the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to carry out the law. Both senators
praised the extremely low radiation limits regarding mountain
groundwaterapproximately 4 millirems annually, the same as
drinking water.
However, within the month the state Nuclear Projects Agency and
a consortium of environmental groups filed separate federal
lawsuits, challenging the adequacy of the EPA's standards. State
Nuclear Projects Agency chief Bob Loux said the EPA's radiation
rule-making should not deal with expected conditions at Yucca
Mountain for a mere 10,000 years into the future, but should be
designed to protect people for at least 800,000 years.
In July 2004, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit upheld the EPA standards against the lawsuits on all
counts except one: the 10,000-year time frame. Although recorded
human history on this planet goes back less than 6,000 years,
and though archeological records indicate that humans invented
agriculture and settled down in cities only 10,000 years ago, a
three-judge federal panel ruled that a million-year framework
suggestion in a 1995 National Academy of Sciences report should
be more strictly followed under a 1992 federal law.
The NAS report, Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards,
had recommended that the standard should be applied within the
limits imposed by the long-term stability of the geologic
environment, which is on the order of one million years.
In the EPAs original 2001 rulemaking, however, the agency had
noted that it is not possible to make reliable estimates of
repository performance over such a long time frame. Given such
uncertainties, EPA had adopted instead a 10,000-year compliance
period, noting that this was the time frame used for the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico and for many international
geologic disposal programs. It then included the million-year
time frame within relevant technical advisory considerations.
However, in response to the 2004 court ruling, the EPA prepared
its newly proposed standards and released them for review
Tuesday. In addition to the original criteria for the first
10,000 years, the new standards now include a second tier for
the next 999,990 years. That rule would limit exposure for
someone living near Yucca Mountain some 10,001 years from now to
a maximum of 350 millirem per year from the repository. Since
normal background radiation for Americans todaymainly from
natural sourcescomes to about 350-360 millirem, the new
standards would allow about 700 millirems exposure annually for
a nearby rural resident. That is about the same amount of
radiation that Americans living in high-altitude cities like
Denver currently receive.
Thus, in the unlikely event that there is still a U.S.
government existing 10,001 years from now, that government,
under the new EPA standards, would be legally responsible for
dealing with a situation where radiation emissions from the
Yucca Mountain facility exceed 700-710 millirems annually for
people living close by.
An unmentioned irony in all of the sparring is that nuclear
industry observers expect nuclear waste stored at Yucca
Mountain, should such storage even come nominally to pass, to be
sold for re-processing within 20 years as a highly valuable
commodity in an increasingly energy-hungry world. For more on
the subject, see the Nevada Policy Research Institutes 2001
white paper, Spare the Rods: The Free-Market Alternative to the
Yucca Mountain Repository, by D. Dowd Muska.
The EPAs full 217-page document released TuesdayPublic Health
and Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca
Mountain, Nevadacan be downloaded at .
*****************************************************************
53 Norwich Bulletin: Base cleanup estimate questioned
www.norwichbulletin.com
Friday, August 12, 2005
By KATHERINE HUTT SCOTT Norwich Bulletin
THURSDAY'S DEVELOPMENTS
+ Anthony Principi, chairman of the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Commission, and panel member Phillip Coyle
questioned the Pentagon's estimated $23.9 million price tag for
environmental cleanup of the Groton submarine base.
+ U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons, R-2nd District, and Gov. M. Jodi
Rellwrote Principi, saying they believe the true cost of the
environmental cleanup at the Groton base "is substantially
higher than the Navy estimate."
+ Rell, Sens. Christopher J. Dodd and Joseph Liebermanand
Simmons have asked for an internal Navy memo that draws into
question the Navy's estimates to move the Groton submarine
school to Kings Bay, Ga.
+ BRAC Commissionmembersalso voiced concern over the Pentagon's
plan to restructure the Air National Guard, which includes
transferring the A-10 Warthog fighters from Connecticut's 103rd
Fighter Wing to Massachusetts.
WHAT'S NEXT
Here's the scheduled of BRAC Commission activities:
+ Aug. 20: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the Joint
Chiefs of Staff will meet with the commission for a final
discussion.
+ Aug. 23-25: The commission will convene three days of public
meetings to deliberate and vote on base closing and realignment
recommendations.
+ Sept. 8: The commission deadline to submit its final
recommendations to the president. The president can accept or
reject the commission's recommendations, or ask the commission
to reconsider. If the president accepts the recommendations, the
list is forwarded to Congress for its approval.
+ If Congress fails to act within 45 days of receiving the list,
the recommended base closings and realignments automatically
become law.
WASHINGTON-- Two members of a panel reviewing the Pentagon's
military base closing recommendations wondered Thursday if
defense officials were overly optimistic in estimating it would
cost only $23.9 million to clean up contamination at the Groton
submarine base if it is closed.
The doubts raised by Anthony Principi, chairman of the Defense
Base Realignment and Closure Commission, and panel member
Phillip Coyle came during a committee hearing on environmental
cleanup associated with this year's round of base closures.
Principi, who previously has expressed concerns about the
Pentagon's recommendation to close the Groton base, questioned
the figure twice Thursday.
The "$23.9 million doesn't seem realistic to me, given 100
years or so of contamination," Principi said.
Officials from the Department of Defense and the Environmental
Protection Agency who testified at the hearing defended the
estimate.
Philip Grone, deputy undersecretary of defense for
installations and environment, said the Navy has extensive
experience in cleaning up other bases that have hosted
nuclear-powered vessels.
"The Navy is very confident about these estimates," Grone said.
The EPA worked with the Pentagon in developing a cleanup cost
estimate for Groton because of its extensive contamination, said
James Woolford, director of the EPA's Federal Facilities
Restoration and Reuse Office. Woolford said the Groton estimate
is "reasonable."
He said after the hearing that the $23.9 million "is an
estimate and it's going to change based on the future use (of
the base). ... There needs to be more environmental
investigation of the site."
EPA officials say the site is contaminated with pesticides,
spent battery acids, oil contaminated with polychlorinated
biphenyls, or PCBs, and other pollutants.
The Pentagon is legally required to clean up environmental
contamination at military bases. The cleanup cost is important
because the goal of this year's military base closings is to
save the Pentagon money that can be used to modernize the
military.
Coyle also asked what the Navy estimate would be if it based
the figure on Connecticut's state cleanup standards. Woolford
said he didn't know but would check.
Groton is among dozens of highly contaminated bases and other
federal facilities that are the subject of cleanup agreements
between their home states, the Pentagon and the EPA, Woolford
said.
Under questioning by a third BRAC commissioner, retired Air
Force Gen. Lloyd Newton, Grone said the Pentagon would honor
those cleanup agreements if the affected bases are closed.
Also Thursday, U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons, R-2nd District, and Gov.
M. Jodi Rell wrote Principi, saying they believe the true cost
of the environmental remediation at the Groton base "is
substantially higher than the Navy estimate." The letter didn't
elaborate, but a statement by Simmons said the cleanup could
cost "hundreds of millions."
The BRAC Commission is reviewing the Pentagon's base-closing
plan and will come up with a final list to present to President
Bush by Sept. 8.
Originally published August 12, 2005
*****************************************************************
54 The Dispatch: Foul water damages?
Email The Editor
Friday, August 12, 2005
By Matt King
San Jose - The trial against Olin Corp. ended Thursday with the
plaintiffs’ lawyer imploring the jury to send a message that the
company must pay for contaminating San Martin’s groundwater with
perchlorate.
“How dare they pollute the groundwater? How dare they tell these
people it’s OK to drink the water? How dare they attack families
who don’t want to give this water to their children?” attorney
Colin Pearce asked the jury. “Set the record straight. Do the
right thing.”
Pearce’s statement concluded three weeks of evidence and
testimony in a case believed to be the first in the nation to
test whether companies can be held financially responsible for
dumping perchlorate. His clients are four San Martin residents
who contend that the discovery of the contamination damaged
their property values and caused irreparable psychological
stress.
Pearce asked the jurors to compensate his clients for their
losses and award punitive damages. The jury will begin
deliberating today.
As he has throughout the proceedings, Olin’s attorney, Tom
Carney, belittled their claims Thursday, arguing to the
nine-member federal jury that San Martin home values have risen
steeply over the last two years and claiming that the plaintiffs
have refused to exploit new technology that could clean their
drinking water.
“They don’t want to know about new technology,” Carney, of the
St. Louis firm Husch and Eppenberger, said. “They want to play
the litigation lottery and get a bunch of money.”
After a few days of emotional testimony from the homeowners, the
trial was one of competing expert opinions on real estate, the
efficacy of systems that scrub perchlorate from water and the
contaminant’s health effects.
The plaintiffs presented witnesses who claimed that the San
Martin housing market has struggled since the 10-mile plume
south and east of Olin’s former Morgan Hill road-flare plant
shuttered since 1995 was revealed in 2003.
According to a real estate appraiser who testified on their
behalf, the homes of the four plaintiffs all lost at least
$150,000 in value after the plume was discovered. Teresa
Pereira’s home, for example, should be worth about $996,000, but
has been valued at $814,000. The home of Tracy Templeton-Smith,
which should be valued at about $1.68 million, is worth only
$1.37 million.
“Their investments have been compromised, devalued. They’re
suspect,” Pearce said.
But Olin countered with a witness who said the average home in
San Martin was worth $96,000 more in 2004 than it was in 2003,
and Carney pointed out once more to the jury that the Pereiras
themselves listed their home value as $990,000 when they
attempted to refinance it earlier this year.
The plaintiffs have not made any health claims - of the four
plaintiffs, only Pereira’s well has tested above the state’s
health goal of 6 parts per billion - but their emotional
distress charges rest heavily on their belief that perchlorate,
which has been shown to inhibit thyroid activity, is so
dangerous that they can no longer drink their water or use it to
raise crops or animals.
“Olin decided to use the drinking water supply as a waste
receptacle. Because of the pollution, the families we represent
can no longer enjoy their homes,” Pearce said. “Olin has to pay
for this damage to our clients.”
But to be successful, the plaintiffs had to convince the jury
that Olin was negligent in its treatment of perchlorate.
According to testimony, Olin operated the Railroad Avenue plant
from 1955 to 1987, and in that time burned, buried and poured
perchlorate into an evaporation and seepage pit.
Olin presented a string of experts who testified that the
company consistently used “state-of-the-art” disposal techniques
and could not have known that perchlorate was invading the
groundwater because the chemical didn’t become a so-called
contaminant of concern until 1997.
“Olin followed all of the regulations at the time,” Carney told
the jury “You can’t prove negligence with hindsight. You have to
put yourself back in that time.”
Pearce mocked the testimony of environmental consultant Neil
Shifrin and defense witnesses who work primarily for the
Perchlorate Study Group, which advises the defense industry. He
said their opinions amounted to saying that “you’re not breaking
the law if you don’t get caught.”
“I call it the Shifrin Doctrine,” he said. “If you can get away
with it, you’re not polluting. But why should our clients be at
Olin’s mercy because they made the economic decision to save a
few bucks?”
The perchlorate was discovered during a routine environmental
analysis at the factory site in 2000, when Olin tried to sell
the land. It wasn’t revealed to the public until 2003. Since
then, Olin has been cleaning the site and providing bottled
water to residents whose well water tests at levels above 4
parts per billion for perchlorate.
Thursday, a panel of scientists convened by the California
Environmental Protection Agency, declined to place perchlorate
on the state’s Proposition 65 list of toxic chemicals known to
cause cancer and birth defects. The panel did not declare
perchlorate to be safe, but said that it has not been “clearly
shown” that it causes “reproductive toxicity.”
State officials said the decision will not affect the central
Coast Regional Water Resources Control Board’s ability to direct
Olin’s cleanup efforts. Earlier this year, the regional board
gave Olin until next June to develop a plan to clean the
groundwater basin. Carney described his client as a “good
corporate citizen,” but regional board engineer David Athey
testified during the trial that the company has a mixed record
of cooperating with the board’s orders.
“Olin is not being a good corporate citizen,” Pearce said.
“Everything they’ve done is based on an order or a request from
the regional board.”
Pearce, of San Francisco’s Duane Morris, represents about 120
clients in all. Their claims are up in the air pending the
outcome of this case. Another 160 San Martin homeowners,
represented by Richard Alexander, of Alexander Hawes and Audet
in San Jose, are on the verge of settling their claims.
Matt King covers Santa Clara County for The Dispatch. He
can be reached at 847-7240 or mking@gilroydispatch.com.
[(408)842-9070]
[Gilroy Dispatch
*****************************************************************
55 Energy Daily: Yucca Critics Rip New EPA Standards -
BY JEFF BEATTIE
Thursday, August 11, 2005
Yucca critics tore into the newly revised radiation safety
standards for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository
Wednesday, saying they are more lenient than comparable limits
set in other countries and permit dangerously high exposures
when any radioactive leakage would likely peak.
The criticism clashes sharply with the Environmental Protection
Agency’s portrayal of the proposed standard, released late
Tuesday, which limits the amount of radioactivity that could
leak from the repository into groundwater.
EPA said the new standard would limit radiation doses to people
near Yucca to levels that many Americans already receive from
natural radiation sources, such as cosmic rays and radon gas.
The new standard was issued by EPA in response to a federal
court ruling last year that tossed out the agency’s initial
standards for the repository as too lax. The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said EPA had to set
a standard covering repository operations over several hundred
thousand years, rather than for only 10,000 years, as provided
for by EPA’s initial standard.
The court ruling virtually halted progress on the Yucca project,
which was already limping due to budget woes and continued
opposition from Nevada officials.
Yucca is crucial to the nuclear industry as the intended
disposal site for tens of thousands of tons of spent fuel and
nuclear waste currently stored at dozens of nuclear plants other
sites across the country.
The radiation standard is key because the Energy
Department—which is responsible for building and running
Yucca—must prove to the NRC that the repository can meet EPA’s
safety standards before NRC will license Yucca.
For the first 10,000 years of repository operation, EPA’s new
plan would retain the agency’s initially proposed standard,
which set a maximum radiation exposure limit of 15 millirem
(mrem) per year for individuals living in the vicinity of the
underground repository.
However, for operations following the initial 10,000-year
compliance period, the agency would set a far more lax standard
extending out 1 million years. That standard would set a maximum
exposure of 350 mrem per individual per year.
In the proposed rule, EPA said Americans in many states are
exposed to natural, background radiation far greater than would
be permitted at Yucca under the new standard.
For instance, “Colorado’s average annual background radiation is
estimated at 700 mrem/yr,” EPA said.
Moreover, many “other states have comparable or...higher
background levels with which people live routinely,” EPA said.
The agency cited North Dakota, South Dakota, and Iowa, for
example, with estimated average annual exposures of 789 mrem,
963 mrem and 784 mrem, respectively.
But that argument does not satisfy Arjun Makhijani, president of
the Maryland-based Institute for Energy and Environmental
Research (IEER) and a frequent critic of the federal agencies
that regulate the nuclear industry.
“The EPA now has the dubious distinction of proposing a standard
that would be the worst in the Western world, by far,” said
Makhijani in a press release late Tuesday. “No Western program
explicitly allows as large as 350 millirem per year at the time
of peak dose.”
Moreover, IEER said the revised standard seems tailored to fit
Yucca Mountain so that it can be licensed, rather than designed
to protect human health. IEER pointed to a 1998 DOE presentation
to the congressionally-mandated Nuclear Waste Technical Review
Board, which estimated the maximum dose from Yucca Mountain was
expected to be 200 to 300 mrem annually after several hundred
thousand years.
“This is just under the proposed limit” set by EPA Tuesday, IEER
noted.
An EPA spokesman declined comment Wednesday on any criticism of
the proposed rule, which is open to public comment for the next
60 days.
Yucca backers remained quiet yesterday, with the industry trade
group, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), saying it would issue
a statement later this week.
However, Yucca supporters may be hoping that a congressional fix
to the radiation standard problem will avert what is likely to
be a prolonged new fight over the revised EPA standard.
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton
(R-Tex.), is widely rumored to be considering introduction of a
“fix-Yucca” bill this fall that would solve a variety of
problems dogging the project. Among rumored provisions are a
measure absolving EPA of the need to set a standard that extends
beyond 10,000 years, and certain budget fixes.
Absent congressional action, the new rule is certain to be
bashed by Nevada officials.
Joseph Egan, a Virginia-based lawyer who represents the state,
called the standard a “really reprehensible proposal.”
EPA has proposed “a standard that is 100 times more lax for
effluence from Yucca than compared to effluence from a nuclear
plant...,” Egan said.
THE ENERGY DAILY
COPYRIGHT 2005 BY KING PUBLISHING GROUP
Llewellyn King, Publisher.
*****************************************************************
56 PE.com: State panel rejects Prop. 65 perchlorate warning
Inland Southern California | Inland News
HEALTH: Research hasn't proved the chemical causes birth
defects, officials say.
12:11 AM PDT on Friday, August 12, 2005
By DAVID DANELSKI / The Press-Enterprise
A California health panel decided Thursday not to add the
rocket-fuel chemical perchlorate to a list of substances that
cause reproductive harm.
A listing could have prompted public warnings about milk,
lettuce and other produce containing the chemical.
The panel concluded that scientific research hasn't clearly
shown that the chemical causes birth defects or other serious
harm to fetuses.
Under Prop. 65, the state's toxic-warning law, the public must
be told about the presence of "reproductive toxicants" in foods,
said Allen Hirsch, a state Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment spokesman.
Burden on Food Industry
Rachel Kaldor, executive director of the Dairy Institute of
California, said a Prop. 65 listing would have been a tremendous
burden on the food industry.
"It is in just about all food or any food with water as an
ingredient," she said.
Approved by California voters in 1986, Prop. 65 requires
businesses with 10 or more employees to warn the public if they
produce, handle or distribute chemicals found to cause cancer or
reproductive harm.
Glen Avon-area environmentalist Penny Newman said she was
disappointed in the decision by the Developmental and
Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee.
Newman said studies have shown that perchlorate inhibits the
thyroid's ability to absorb iodide, a nutrient the gland needs
to make hormones that control brain and nerve development in
fetuses and infants.
The panel's 5-0 vote against listing perchlorate will have no
effect on state efforts to set enforceable limits on the
chemical in drinking water, Hirsh said.
Perchlorate is an explosive salt used to make rockets,
munitions, road flares, matches and fireworks.
It has seeped from Cold War-era factories and military lands to
contaminate hundreds of drinking-water supplies nationwide,
including several Inland water sources.
A former perchlorate factory near Las Vegas has polluted the
lower Colorado River, which irrigates alfalfa crops as well as
most the nation's winter lettuce. Tests have found the chemical
in lettuce, cow's milk and human breast milk.
Not a High Priority
Tim Chelling, a Western Growers Association spokesman, said that
several expert groups have concluded perchlorate isn't a
health-risk priority.
"As far as fresh produce is concerned, perchlorate is not a
health factor, period," Chelling said.
Reach David Danelski at (951) 368-9471 or
ddanelski@pe.comMore
2005, The Press-Enterprise Company
*****************************************************************
57 AU ABC: Martin defends efforts to fight nuclear waste dump.
13/08/2005.
ABC News Online
Northern Territory Chief Minister Clare Martin has rejected
claims she has not been actively involved in the Government's
fight against a nuclear waste facility.
CLP Senator Nigel Scullion noted Ms Martin's absence from a
meeting in Darwin yesterday about the proposed waste facility.
Senator Scullion says it is typical of a Labor leader to
disappear when there is a chance of negative publicity.
Ms Martin did not attend any of the three waste facility
meetings but she says other Labor politicians have.
Ms Martin says she is working to pressure Senator Scullion into
crossing the floor of the Senate to vote against the dump.
"It's all very well for Nigel Scullion to make a few press
releases and than disappear and not be available," she said.
"Nigel Scullion is the one who can make the difference to this
legislation that is going have to be passed by the Federal
Government and he can cross the floor and he needs to do that on
behalf of Territorians."
Senator Scullion says he never reveals how he intends to vote
in the Senate.
2005 ABC| Privacy Policy
*****************************************************************
58 KLAS: Reaction to EPA's Radiation Exposure Rule
August 12, 2005
Some of the state's biggest opponents of Yucca Mountain say new
guidelines for the project are the equivalent of the federal
government to tell Nevadans to, quote, "drop dead."
The executive director of the state's Agency for Nuclear
Projects says the new radiation safety standards are too lax
and, quote, based on scientific fraud he says over the course of
the one-million year project, 10 million Nevadans could die
because of radiation exposure.
Stece Frishman, with the Agency for Nuclear Projects, said,
"Purposely try to make people aware of how ridiculous this
standard is. And how a federal agency, that is supposed to be
protecting the lives and health of people in this nation, how a
federal agency will bend over backwards for the interest of a
nuclear agency and Department of Energy just to try and make
Yucca Mountain stick."
The proposal puts limits on how much radiation people living
near the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump would be exposed to.
During the first 10,000 years the exposure would be limited to
15 millirems, which is about equivalent to a chest x-ray. But
from that point out to one million years the level would
increase more than 20 fold to 350 millirems a year.
The Department of Energy is happy with the new standard. It says
it is based on the best available standard.
Atle Erlingsson, Reporter
The EPA, trying to overcome a court ruling that threatens a
proposed nuclear waste dump in Nevada, proposed new radiation
exposure limits. Read on for a link to the EPA's news release.
All content © Copyright 2000 - 2005 WorldNow and KLAS. All
*****************************************************************
59 Las Vegas SUN: Henderson rocket fuel manufacturer planning perchlorate clean-up
Today: August 12, 2005 at 14:8:25 PDT
ASSOCIATED PRESS
HENDERSON, Nev. (AP) - A southern Nevada rocket fuel
manufacturer plans to start cleaning up an underground water
supply contaminated with the chemical ammonium perchlorate.
American Pacific Corp. disclosed its plan for the chemical
cleanup Thursday in its third-quarter financial report, which
includes a $22.4 million pretax charge for the environmental
remediation program.
Company chief executive John Gibson said American Pacific, which
makes ammonium perchlorate for booster rockets on the space
shuttle, was not under a court order or administrative directive
to clean up the chemical.
But he said the company has been working with the Nevada
Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency to resolve water pollution
concerns.
Perchlorate has been found to interfere with thyroid function.
The federal EPA issued its first safety standard for the
chemical in February, following a National Academy of Sciences
recommendation that it not exceed 24.5 parts per billion in
drinking water. One part per billion amounts to about one drop
in an Olympic-size swimming pool.
Some underground water that American Pacific will treat in the
Henderson area exceeds the EPA level. Gibson said he doesn't
believe the contamination has entered the public water supply.
American Pacific intends to use wells to pump underground water,
treat it with a chemical that absorbs oxygen from the ammonium
perchlorate, and reinject the water underground. About 400
gallons per minute will be processed, Gibson said.
The American Pacific clean-up will take up to 45 years, with
estimated annual operating and maintenance costs of $800,000
declining to $300,000. The company expects to spend up to $8
million over the next 12 months on the project.
It said it hopes to recover costs through a surcharge on
contracts or by increasing prices for some clients.
Most of the contamination is believed to have occurred during
decades of production and when a massive series of explosions
leveled the facility in 1988, killing two people and injuring
300.
Oklahoma City-based Kerr-McGee Chemical has spent more than $100
million cleaning up perchlorate contamination from a separate
chemical production facility in Henderson. The company in 1998
ceased production of the rocket fuel compounds sodium
perchlorate and ammonium perchlorate.
Tainted water from the Kerr-McGee plant has been found in Lake
Mead and the Colorado River, and traces of the chemical have
turned up in lettuce and milk from cows exposed to Colorado
River water.
Information from: Las Vegas Review-Journal, http://www.lvrj.com
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
60 Pahrump Valley Times: NEVADA LEADERS DENOUNCE 'NEW' RADIATION STANDARDS
Ground zero at Yucca Mountain
August 12, 2005
By PHILLIP GOMEZ PVT
Public hearings planned, remain unscheduled
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has provided 60 days
for public comment on the new Yucca Mountain safety standard,
beginning from the date of its publication in the Federal
Register, approximately the week of Aug. 21, according to
Jeffrey Holmstead, EPA assistant administrator for air and
radiation.
Additionally, public hearings on the issue affecting 25,000
generations into the future will be held in Las Vegas and in
Amargosa Valley. The dates have not yet been announced.
Elected officials in Nevada had harsh words for the United
States Environmental Protection Agency's announcement Tuesday of
a new, long-range radiation protection standard required to be
met before licensure of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste
repository.
Gov. Kenny Guinn and Attorney General Brian Sandoval released a
joint press release calling the EPA's new 1-million-year
radiation standard "a snub to the scientific community. ... It's
an obscenely lax and dangerous new standard. They just threw up
their arms and gave the project a pass."
The standard is the primary benchmark used to determine the
repository's safety, setting the maximum permissible radiation
dose to humans living near the waste site - Amargosa Valley.
EPA's new standard keeps the 15-millirem radiation dose limit
as before, during the first 10,000 years of the repository's
operation, but scientists expect no leakage from canisters of
radioactive nucleotides into the environment at that time. It's
after that period, when leakage is more likely, that raises
scientific concern. At that time far in the future, the EPA
"would permit the standard to become 23 times more lenient,"
Guinn and Sandoval said.
"We were pessimistic about the outcome (of EPA's revision of the
standard to meet the court's approval), given EPA's record of
pushing the repository," said Guinn. "But never in our wildest
nightmares would we have anticipated such a ridiculous standard.
The EPA's dangerous proposal is three-and-a-half times more
lenient than even the nuclear industry had recommended in a
formal report to EPA last spring."
EPA's new standard is the one by which the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission will evaluate the Department of Energy's long-range
burial plans to safely protect the public from radiation at the
waste site, unless the court again intervenes as it did in July
2004.
Other allegations made by Guinn and Sandoval regarding EPA's
Yucca standard included in the release were:
€ "It lets future residents of Nevada suffer 100 times more
radiation exposure from releases than what the federal
government currently permits for residents living near nuclear
power plants.
€ "It paradoxically applies a far stricter standard when the
repository is not leaking than when it is leaking.
€ "It is by far the most lenient radiation protection standard
proposed for any nuclear waste disposal project in the world.
€ "For the first time ever in the world, it seeks to establish
the level of 'natural background radiation' received by
Americans as a tolerable threshold for additional radiation from
manmade sources."
(The natural radiation referred to is radon gas emitted from the
ground and into houses and other buildings, normally about 350
millirem in rural areas like the Amargosa Valley. In large urban
centers in the West residents are exposed to about twice that
amount - the level at which the new standard is set for
permissible radiation without ill-health effects.)
€ "It completely abandons any separate groundwater protection
standard during the time of expected leakage from the
repository, applying it only during that time period in which no
leakage is expected. Yet, EPA has admitted that groundwater
contamination would represent as much as 80 percent of any total
radiation dose to humans from Yucca.
"If this bogus new standard, or anything close to it, ends up
being adopted by EPA, Nevada will sue them again," said Sandoval.
"I can't imagine how they could have done anything to make
themselves more vulnerable in the court of law as well as the
court of science," Guinn said. "This is junk science at its
worst."
Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., an ardent opponent of Yucca Mountain,
also had harsh words for the EPA's decision. "The standard ...
is arbitrary and grossly misguided. EPA has an obligation to
protect public safety today, tomorrow and in a million years.
Yet, the EPA thought it would be OK to increase its radiation
standard from 15 millirem to 350 millirem - a 23-fold increase -
when the clock hits 10,000 years and 1 day, simply because we
don't know what the future holds. They have no scientific
evidence to show such a dramatic increase is warranted or safe.
"The EPA should not speculate that a standard which is not
deemed safe today could miraculously become a safe standard in
the future. Public health and safety standards should not be
based on speculation and supposition."
Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Las Vegas, said, "This proposal is but
the latest in a long line of attempts by the Bush administration
to jump start stalled efforts to bury the nation's nuclear waste
in Nevada. Backers of this failing project know they must have a
radiation standard in place that can be met in order for Yucca
Mountain to be licensed, and that fact - rather than public
safety - is the driving force behind this effort.
"We know the longer that the waste is buried there, the more
deadly it will become. The National Academy of Sciences spoke
clearly when it said this standard should cover the peak level
of danger created by waste slated to go to Yucca Mountain and it
will be up to EPA to prove this new proposal meets that test. It
must be noted that the National Academy found in June of this
year that radiation exposure at any level increases cancer
risks, and that there is no safe threshold.
"The courts rejected the last attempt to set a radiation
standard that failed to fully protect the threat posed by this
deadly waste, and Nevada will not hesitate to use all its
resources to challenge this new rule.
"Cheerleaders for burying nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain will
claim (this) puts to rest questions about the dump's future."
Berkley continued: "That is simply not the case, and burying
nuclear waste in Nevada is as dangerous and ill conceived today
as it was two decades ago when this process began. Even though
they have proposed a new radiation standard, the Bush
administration has yet to prove that the canisters holding the
waste will not corrode and dump this radioactive garbage into
our drinking water."
webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com
Copyright © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 2005
*****************************************************************
61 [NukeNet] Report from Livermore: Aug 6 and 9
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 15:25:05 -0700
WHITE_PHRASE autolearn=unavailable version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: darwin.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com